I see no reason for me to have a highly ornate user page. We're here to build a collection of free images and support the media needs of other Wikimedia projects, not write biographies about ourselves.
Something that I think we as a community need to do is get rid of this notion that some in the outside world have that Wikimedia Commons (or Wikipedia) is a library of free (as in soda) stock photos. Some of our photos are public domain — and you can do with those as you please. But others are licensed under the GFDL or various Creative Commons licenses and in order to use those images, you must comply with the terms of the license.
Speaking only for myself, I don't get tremendously upset when I see one of my photos used on some person's non-profit blog or message board. I would much prefer you provide credit and comply with the terms of the license but chances are, I'm not going to go out of my way to do something about it. I do, however, get upset when the alleged "mainstream" media uses my photos with neither permission nor attribution nor compliance with the terms of the license. Associated Content (now owned by Yahoo News), Forbes, and the Roanoke Times, for example, have used my photos without permission. On the other hand, one of my least favorite alleged news sites - examiner.com - uses one of my photos and properly attributes it. What kind of message does that send?
Important note: I am not the author of many of the images that I have uploaded. You should check the "Summary" section of the image description page for proper attribution information for images that you reuse outside of Wikipedia.