File talk:No Facebook.svg

 

 

No Facebook upload warning

@Huhu Uet: @Alchemist-hp: I noticed that this file has been used in such warnings: "This file has been released under a license which is incompatible with Facebook's licensing terms. It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook". I really don't think that such warnings are legal. It is obvious that if somebody sends "own" work to facebook, facebook will have right to reproduce it, but when you upload somebody else work nothing has changed. FB terms. Our works in commons are under CC licence so we can not make any additional limitation. While he work is cited to author, nobody can stop broadcasting it, even if it is promoted for sell (commercial use) Monfie (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Read and try to understand the Fakcebook licensing ... The CC-BY-SA-xx isn't compatible with it! That is fact! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue is considerable if you upload "YOUR OWN" photos into FaceBook. But when others upload your photo it is out of topic to talk about FB licencing.--Monfie (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no issue for 'own' photos, but there is one in uploading cc-by-sa works you are not the author, at least in theory, since you cannot grand a specific licence to facebook. The issue is on Facebook side not on ours or on creative Commons side. Esby (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no such rule that creative commons works must only be shown in creative commons websites. When we publish our works under cc-by we allow all commercial websites to use and publish them, of course by citing creator name. When CNN can use our works, there is no law that we can exclude Facebook. If work is published in Facebook for first time it may be different but definitely face book is allows to republish cc works.In short FB licencing is applies to works that: 1- Published in FB for first time (not just republished by FB). 2- Uploader is the creator. --Monfie (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I too think so, earlier. But Wikilegal also concluded that there is a conflict between FB ToU (2.1) and Copyleft licenses. 18.4 defines "By "content" we mean anything you or other users post on Facebook that would not be included in the definition of information." FB says nothing about posting contents having IP rights held by others. At 5.1 it vaguely states "You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law." So, the current opinion of the legal stands until FB update their ToU.

But I prefer a more informative wording like "FB only allows publishing of own and public domain works. This file is copyrighted; so incompatible with Facebook's licensing terms." than "This file has been released under a license which is incompatible with Facebook's licensing terms. It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook". Jee 03:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes please, pardon me but when I just came across this logo used on a German file of hemp insulation, it did so strike me as being very ghetto and unofficial. This seems like Wikipedia/Commons taking fair use etc too far. And going to far down the rabbit hole of technicalities. B137 (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I once had the case of somone uploading a dozed of my images to FB, even linking to the original Images. Nowing the vagou FB terms, I've send a complaint to FB stating ""Those files hav been released under a license which is incompatible with Facebook's licensing terms.". And they where gone within six hours. At least this time so far.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)