This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Wenn jemand ein Foto von mir ins Fratzenbuch lädt, kommt eine Abmahnung vom Anwalt. Die Einschätzung der Foundation betrifft nur CC-Lizenzen, die ich höchst selten verwende, sie ist auch falsch. --Ralf Roletschek11:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposeDa kann ich Ralf nur zustimmen, CC und Fratzenbuch sind inkompatibel, und ds sollte de Dumpfbacken, die jeden Sch*** auf Fratzenbuch hochladen, sehr deutlich gesagt werden. Fratzenbuch geht mir am Allerwertesten vorbei, die sind a) bösartige Datenkraken und b) VT-Propagandaschleusdern, auf die darf keine Rücksicht genommen werden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This template refers to meta:Legal/CC-BY-SA on Facebook which has been moved to meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media. It is interesting to see how WMF legal changed their opinion about this. Before, it was considered to be incompatible, now no issue is seen with that. There was a short notice on the talk page by Jrogers (WMF) but so far no response to the question by Gestumblindi. In my opinion, this issue should be discussed firstly more openly at COM:VPC before we head to delete such warnings. We had multiple discussions about this problem in the past, mostly refering to the past version of the Meta page. Whatever the outcome, I would recommend some changes in the wording of the template. Currently, the incompatibility is stated as a fact (“which is incompatible”, “It is not permitted”). My suggestion would be to be more careful as the terms of use of Facebook change frequently and as there exist multiple versions of these terms of use (those for Europe differ from those for the United States), and as many legal systems are involved. Hence, this could be rewritten without a link to Meta to something like “In the legal opinion of the copyright holder any of the given licenses are considered incompatible with the terms of use of Facebook as long as they require the work to be sub-licensable.” And who knows perhaps eventually Facebook provides the option to upload and share CC-BY- and CC-BY-SA-licensed works under the terms of these licenses on their site. In such a situation, this template would indeed spread confusion in its current version. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Facebook has no compatible licence, and facebook is evil. I don't grant them anythimg but CC-BY-SA, and that's incompatible, and I want to be clear about that for those dickheads, that don't adhere to that. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)10:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copied this template, without checking the legal aspects. So no problem with deleting, reading the reason. Be aware of the fact that some other users copied my template. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose es sind eine halbe Million Fotos betroffen, das kann man nicht mal schnell löschen. Die Stellungnahme der WMF betrifft nur CC-Dateien und sie ist unzutreffend für Kontinentaleuropa. --Ralf Roletschek15:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, und eine Rücknahme der unsinnigen Löschung der Hauptvorlage ist überfällig. Warum ist die gelöscht worden? Wegen diesem Unsinn, der da auf meta verzapft wurde ohne jede Diskussion und ohne auf Fragen einzugehen? Wie wird hier eine LP angeleiert? das war ein klarer und eindeutiger Adminfehler bei der Abarbeitung. Fratzenbuch hat keine freie Lizenz, eine Veröffentlichung auf Fratzenbuch ist also eine klare Lizenzverstoß, und eigentlich würde ich von der Rechtsabteilung der WMF erwarten, Herrn Zuckerberg diesbezüglich abzumahnen. Wir richten uns nicht nach Fratzenbuch usw., die haben sich gefälligst an die Lizenzen zu halten. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC) PS: Ich habe dann mal eine LP angestoßen]]. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)16:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Der löschende Administrator hat als Begründung für die Löschung einen Vote benannt, der 3 Minuten vor der Löschung vom löschenden Administrator abgegeben wurde. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
S/He, who can read, has massive advantages. As you can see, the sections above here are copied from diverse deletion requests, where I opposed them, on different pages. After I opposed them, all those pages were combined her, with every vote in there. So I voted 3 times once, and those three votes were copied here by SAM,WAF. So there is absolutely no problem with this. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)05:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I was not aware that there was a dicussion about Template:Nofacebook and I would have strongly opposed the deletion. When Christian Ferrer wrote that this template is the "oposite of the aim of Wikimedia Commons" I certainly hope that providing knowledge; instructional or informative does not mean to do that at all costs and thus actively supporting copyright violation. I absolutely do not agree with the opinion voiced on meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media. Social media platforms (SMP), and in particular Facebook, generally assume in their TOS, that the uploader is the copyright owner or has the permission to upload. Thus they will use pictures in any way they see fit, completely disregarding the orogin of the file and thus CC-BY-SA (or other [free] licenses). Creators of "free" content must rely on the protection of their rights by the platform where they create content. If not, this will erode the user's trust in the system which may result in users voing with their feet. And while we discuss pictures, nobody would ever doubt that if a person c&p-ed an article to Facebook without proper license we all would come to the conclusion that this is a copyvio. So why should this not apply to pictures? I strongly reccomend that the Foundation should come to an agreement with FB, Twitter etc that will commit SMP to respect the relevant licenses. In the meantime, there is no need to rush to a decision or a hasty deletion. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 16:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, maybe change the wording, and I support restoring {{Nofacebook}} pending a more in-depth discussion. I think that the previous deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook wasn't properly discussed; and maybe a DR isn't the right place for this broader discussion at all. As AFBorchert points out, the contradiction between the deleted template {{Nofacebook}} and meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media is a rather new thing caused by a nearly unexplained total change of the views expressed on the Meta page; see discussion there. I hope that the WMF's legal team will at some point explain to us why their views on this issue have changed so radically, and what the new legal reasoning exactly is. As far as I know, Facebook still requests you to grant them certain extensive rights for any material posted, which you simply can't do if it's third-party CC-BY-SA material - which is therefore a violation of the TOU. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OriginalIn FaceBook hochgeladen und wieder hier hochgeladen
Simples Beispiel, ich habe ein Bild von mir im Original und dann in FaceBook hochgeladen und wieder runter und hier hochgeladen, keine Exifdaten sind vorhanden. Habe ich einen Fehler gemacht? Tschüß -- Ra Boewatt??20:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Simple example, I uploaded a picture of me in the original and then uploaded it to FaceBook and downloaded it again and uploaded it here, no exif data is available. Have I made a mistake? Bye -- Ra Boewatt??20:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have made a mistake, the version you've reuploaded to Commons might be a preview image with stripped metadata.
Comment I have to complete my previous closure: this kind of sentence: "it is not permitted to..." is also the full opposite of our our policy: "In particular, the license must meet the following conditions: Republication and distribution must be allowed." One of our pillar which is the free redistribution is here fully ridiculed, furthermore it is ridiculed on a large scale using widely used templates. TOUs of other websites are absolutly not our concerns, we have our policies. I quote another time one of our policies and one of the several sentences that said the same thing "content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose" (when you compare with "it is not permitted to", nothing hurt you?). Sorry but I think I will close this DR as deleted even if there are a hundred of "keep" votes. "it is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook." is unacceptabele as per com:Scope and our com:Licensing, and it is a step in the wrond direction possible: if we allow that, why not accept other template(s) (or simple sentence(s)) against other specific websites? everyone will be able to choose the sites for which they give their agreements? This is inaccceptable. Christian Ferrer(talk)20:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry colleague, but closing this DR at this point would be unacceptable. If a site, such as Facebook, which is relevant for re-use, does systematically violate CC license terms, this cannot be ignored by a generic reference to our "spirit". --Túrelio (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A web site don't violate any of the CC license terms, users of that website may do though. Like potentially all other reusers in the world. By "unacceptable" I guess you mean more unacceptable than my "unacceptable to allow a "it is not permitted to..." while two of our policies explicitely prohib the reuse restrictions? Well, so I am aware, warned, and therefore will act in full awareness if I think I have to. Thanks you. Christian Ferrer(talk)20:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim A web site don't violate any of the CC license terms is incorrect. As has been shown by the 2 examples on the right side, when an image is uploaded to Facebook, their software strips the image of most metadata. This had even been subject of a legal case at a 2nd-level court in Germany in 2016, which ruled that Facebook has to leave metadata intact.[1][2] In accordance with that, in 2014 a 3rd-level court in Germany ruled that the removal of a watermark, which contained copyright information, violated the provision "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work"[3] of the CC license[4]. --Túrelio (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: I think you misunderstand what Facebook is doing. They want that every uploader gives them the rights to exploit their images in certain ways that are broader than CC-BY-SA, especially they don't have to adhere to the "BY" and "SA" part of the license. If you upload your own work to Facebook and you really want to give them these special rights (which rather fly into the face of the spirit of CC licenses), you are free to do so. But if you upload someone else's CC-BY-SA licensed work to Facebook, not only violate you Facebook's TOU, but you also open the path for Facebook to use these works in violation of the CC-BY-SA license (without attribution and so on), because Facebook relies on your acceptance of their TOU when uploading. So, uploading CC-BY-SA images to Facebook violates not only "TOUs of other websites", but the very spirit and intent of CC-BY-SA and acts against the creators who choose that license. And, of course, it is not your place to close this DR here now, you should leave this to an admin not involved in this discussion so far - for example, I will of course also not close this DR, because I'm biased through my participation in this discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think, you, you misunderstood, nobody cant give to Facebook the rights they don't own. Point. It is not legally permished to infrige the copyright of the files hosted in Wikimedia Commons when we use Flickr, however some does, do we make a template "it is not permitted to upload this file to Flickr"? Is it also permitted to do other similar template for other social medias, or other websites? can you make a list? or maybe a list of criteria about the TOUs of those websites in order to know if we can make a new template prohibiting redistribution for a speciefic website? I think I'm done with this discussion, we indeed have not the same understanding, not on ly about facbook TOU, but more about our policies "Republication and distribution must be allowed", ect..., and more important, not the same understandind on how to those policies have to be applied concretly. Good luck, Christian Ferrer(talk)21:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Flickr have a TOU too, do you have read it? do you found similarities with TOU of facebooks? if yes, do we make a template for Flickr too? if no, do you allow that someone else who don't appreciate Flickr's TOU can make also a template prohibiting the reuse of our images in Flickr? if no why? Are we allowed (going) to make a template for every web sites of the world that have a TOU that don't satisfy one or even a lot of Wikimedia Commons users? if yes, is it possible to change our policies that talk about reuse? maybe we should write "Republication and distribution must be allowed, excepeted in Facebook, xxx, jjjj, ect, ect...". LOL. That would not more acceptable than such a template. Christian Ferrer(talk)21:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another example, I have a picture of me in the original (2020) and then uploaded it to FaceBook and downloaded it again and uploaded it here, only two infos are available.bye -- Ra Boewatt??21:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OriginalIn FaceBook hochgeladen und wieder hier hochgeladen
I voted weak delete the last time, thinking of the updated version of the Meta page to be more accurate than the old one. Perhaps it would be best to reword these templates to "the author asks that this file not be uploaded to third-party websites such as Facebook or YouTube, but you'll be fine as long as you follow the terms of the license". After all, it is still possible to violate copyrights of any CC-BY content posted here. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)00:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
es ist möglich überall gegen die cc-by-bedingungen zu verstoßen und es ist möglich auf einem sozialen medium korrekte cc-by-angaben zu machen. es ist aber sehr schwierig, fast unmöglich. eine formulierung, wie die vorgeschlagene, ist wachsweich und läßt die leute ins offene messer rennen. leute haben keine ahnung von lizenzen, sie haben keine ahnung von cc-lizenzen, und insbesondere nutzer sozialer medien glauben, sie würden alles richtig machen, wenn sie einem bild ein "mention" ( link mit "@") beifügen. und dieses unwissen geht bis zu einer dunja hayali, die immerhin selbst als bekannte journalistin ihr geld damit verdient, dass leute möglichst nicht gegen ihre lizenzen verstoßen. es ist nicht "der wunsch des autors", es ist die pflicht des nachnutzers (und das unabhängig von schuld oder unwissen) die lizenzen zu beachten. und es ist notwendig, das klar und verständlich zu formulieren, nicht verschleiert durch diplomatischen oder höflichen juristensprech. --C.Suthorn (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete user templates, restore {{Nofacebook}} and correct it - According to WMF Legal's latest analysis, the CC licenses trump the Facebook Terms of Use, so if you upload a CC-licensed image to Facebook, you aren't necessarily violating the CC license, but you are violating the Facebook Terms of Use. We could repurpose {{Nofacebook}} to accurately convey a warning to this effect. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: As Ralf points out, there are other free licenses on Commons which are probably incompatible with Facebook (and other platforms that require you to grant them extra rights like Facebook). Ralf is sometimes multiple-licensing his photos in a manner that may look a bit complicated, but is ultimately fine - see for example File:19-01-19-Chișinău RRK0212.jpg. This is multiple-licensed under GNU-FDL 1.2 only, CeCILL and the Free Art License. GFDL 1.2 only is no longer allowed as a single license, as we all know, but as an additional license to other free licenses it's permitted. But all of these are probably not compatible with Facebook etc. So the "Nofacebook" templates can't be only used for CC licenses. How exactly the relation between other free licenses and Facebook etc. looks is something that would still need working out, however, as the Meta page is only dealing with CC licenses anyway. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info There's now a response by Jrogers (WMF) at meta:Talk:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media, and also a statement by Gnom (who doesn't work for the WMF, but is a lawyer specializing in copyright and current chair of the board of Wikimedia Deutschland). Both stress that, although you may indeed be violating the TOU of a platform like Facebook if you upload a CC-BY-SA or similarly licensed work there whilst adhering to the license yourself, you don't violate the license, or in Jrogers' words: "If someone posts a CC licensed work on any website with incompatible terms of use, but they do all the license compliance right, that person hasn't violated the license at all." I trust their expertise. But I still think we can keep the templates (and restore {{Nofacebook}}) with a changed wording: make them warning templates that inform users about the incompatibility with the TOU of such platforms, but don't say "It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook". I think that would be broadly in the spirit of the precautionary principle here on Commons, where we're traditionally very cautious (Yes, PRP is about files on Commons, not use outside of Commons, but it reflects a generally cautious approach into which such a warning fits well). Gestumblindi (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just commenting to say that I think that Gestumblindi is correctly restating Jrogers' opinion (with which I think I agree), and to offer to create a quick explainer video visualising the underlying legal reasoning, if you find this helpful. --Gnom (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I supposed that Túrelio meant to support my proposal (keeping the templates with changed wording), as the post was apparently in response to that, but well, a clarification couldn't hurt :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The TOU of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, TikTok and many others strongly contradict many of our free licences, because the companies TOUs generally include an unlimited use of all material without any attribution for their own purposes. Also, the TOU have been and are being changed over time without any matching to our licences. So the WMF and Gnom by declaring this would fit together, you reduce all licences to 'public domain'. But Wikimedia & Commons users know PD/CC0 and often expressedly choose otherwise. --.js07:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These templates are often used as part of a collection of vanity templates to drive potential users of images to contact the uploader off-wiki to secure a non-SA license (i.e., in exchange for money). The NoFacebook-type templates all falsely misinform the viewer that it is not permitted to use those images on Facebook, etc. Or that Facebook's TOS is incompatible with CC licenses. As an example, User:Raboe001/NoFacebook links to meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media as supposedly providing more guidance as to why you can't use tagged images on social media. What does the page say? Exactly the opposite. It does not violate the CC license to use CC images on social media. What is required is compliance with the license terms. In short, these templates serve a deceptive purpose and should be deleted. Let me just say to the image uploaders that don't like Facebook, go find where your images are being used and send out DMCA takedowns if you genuinely think there's a license incompatibility such that your rights are being violated. 69.174.144.7907:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed above, the reason for the apparent inconsistency is that meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media used to express a very different WMF viewpoint and has been changed substantially in the meantime; that's not deception on part of those wo based their templates on that. I stand by my above suggestion to keep the templates with a changed wording. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The core problem is that the people who use these templates are often doing so essentially to intimidate individuals who want to reuse their content into contacting them off-wiki to seek alternative licensing for a fee. 69.174.144.7900:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Das Kernproblem ist, dass die allermeisten Menschen Lizenzen nicht verstehen und gutgläubig Lizenzverstöße begehen. Von WM werden die beiden Lizenzen cc-0 und cc-by-sa-4.0 favorisiert. Das sind genau die Lizenzen, die für Nachnutzer am vorteilhaftesten sind. Trotzdem werden auch diese Lizenzen vielfach nicht verstanden. Es ist möglich in sozialen Netzen diese Lizenzen zu beachten. Das geschieht aber so gut wie nie. Potentiellen Nachnutzern einen Hinweis zu geben "mach das nicht!" ist ein Service an der Allgemeinheit und am Projekt. In drei Monaten tritt die Digital Copyright Directive in Kraft. Dann wird es für alle Mediennutzer in der EU unbedingt notwendig Lizenzen korrekt zu beachten. Und für WM wird es wichtiger denn je selbst Lizenzen zu beachten, um sicherzustellen, dass sowohl das Projekt Wikipedia weiterleben kann, als auch dass die Nachnutzung von Commons-Medien ausserhalb WM möglich bleibt. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Daß in Wikipedias korrekt lizenziert wird, das werden wir nicht erleben. Dazu ist die Freibierfraktion zu laut. Eher verzichtet man ganz auf Fotos. CC1 ist genauso einfach nachnutzbar wie CC4, nur kann man die Lizenz nicht einfach umschreiben, wie man Lust hat. CC0 gehört verboten. Ralf Roletschek08:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Following the change in Wikimedia Legal's opinion, it is now contradictory to keep telling users that sharing on social media "is not permitted". Potential reusers keep wondering about these obsolete warnings, let alone if they contain a link to the Meta page which has since been updated to say the contrary. More stress could definitely be put on enforcing that reusers do abide by the licensing conditions, but there is no point in leading them by the hand and warning them they might be breaching some site's terms of use by behaving there in certain way. As long as the work's license does not get breached (and Wikimedia Legal says it does not), then it is not the author's business (and not even Wikimedia's), but a problem of that user at the most.
We might decide to take some action against the big players so that they do not let their users routinely breach their site's terms of use, but so far it seems they do not mind. We may decide to modify the template so that it explicitely targets this practice, but we have no grounds to prevent it from happening, and discussing it would bring the risk of only enforcing the bad view in people that "legal obligations of all kinds are there to be routinely disrespected". Therefore, I would prefer not to step on this hot ground altogether and just delete these templates and take care of our own business only. The general template "Nofacebook" has already been deleted, so with this request still open after half a year, we are hanging in yet-another self-contradiction, which keeps affecting hundreds of thousands of images (that's the number of links to the "No Facebook" image here on Commons at this moment) every single day. --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"No facebook template has already been deleted" this DR is actually an undeletion request of the no facebook template. the deletion of the general template was done by an admin who had shortly before argued for the deletion and has been seen as disruption. The reality is that most people who use a file from commons at social media disrespect both: the TOU of the social network and the copyright of the author. It has been proposed to rework the template and i have added a reworked version to this very page. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expressing your opinion. Although I would strongly prefer seeing templates go as part of further reducing non-binding template clutter in file pages (and I am therefore not going to change my suggested resolution), I could imagine a less prohibitive rewording as an intermediary solutions. The current wording successfully intimidates even people who have been trained to use free-licensed content. See for evidence this thread, under a blog post about image copyright, by someone who was misled by the current template into thinking that a particular photo from Commons cannot be reused freely (which would deny the project's very purpose). By mixing strong license templates with weak ill-written personal opinions on usage terms of particular third-party services, we have been sending out a distorted message about free licenses for a very long time now.
And sorry, but this page's title says it is a deletion request and I see nowhere on this page where it would say that this discussion was instead about a possible undeletion of the first template. The only such request so far that I could find was rejected already in November 2020. Your statement that many people disrespect the copyright of the author might be true, but the author retains all rights to sue such a trespasser under valid law. I can understand when an uploader puts up a custom notice urging reusers to respect the license terms (or, even better, suggests a convenient update to the existing license templates), but I can't tolerate when the same objective is attempted by polluting the "official" licensing terms with non-binding wishes by the author (if they were actual license terms, then they would be putting the work out of the project's scope), let alone if those notices are purposely formulated to trick the visitor into believing that the alleged prohibition is imposed by the author, the license, or the project (in contrast to, possibly, the terms of a particular third-party service). This holds particularly true when we now have the updated statement in this matter by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team.
I get the feeling that most of the users of these templates probably use them because of their personal dislike for Facebook; the systematic use of the derogatory nickname "Fratzenbuch" instead of the website's proper name in the German-language contributions by two opponents of the deletion in this discussion provides evidence for that. Even though they definitely have the right to that opinion (which I even happen to particularly share), I am convinced that they should refrain from further taking members of the public hostage of their personal Facebook boycott by putting up notices seemingly suggesting that reuse of the works in particular places is specifically prohibited by the applied free license. I am sorry, but "free for everyone" means exactly that – including your possible enemies or competitors – and not "free for everyone except for…", even if you may not like it. Although I deeply estimate the value of those hundreds of thousands of contributions to Wikimedia Commons, they are hosted here under certain conditions that need to be met. --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usage data: I ran a database query to get an estimate on how many Commons authors are actually using these "no Facebook" templates. I surveyed it by tracking the use of the No_Facebook.svg and NO_Facebook.png images in the File namespace and looking at the creator of the first revision of each such page. The results tell us that a total of 104 actors (~users) have used such template more than 100 times, and additional 66 actors at least 10 times. There is a total of 826 distinct actors, but most of those with a low number of hits are merely uploaders of derived images who have copied the templates from the source image's page. Out of the 535,836 affected images, 80% have been created by the most active 19 actors, in the following order of descending number of images: ComputerHotline (14% of the total), Raboe001 (13%), Ralf Roletschek (7%), Huhu Uet (6%), C.Suthorn (5%), Poco a poco, Joergens.mi (both 4%), Steindy, Stunteltje (both 3%), Karl Gruber (3%), Ad Meskens, Cccefalon, 2eight, Acabashi, A.Savin, Hubertl, Wpcpey, 1971markus, Ajepbah (all the latter 2%). According to Special:Statistics, there are currently 73,057,471 uploaded images in Wikimedia Commons and 42,295 active users.de:Nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet
of this 73M files only 63M are jpg-images, the other files are PDFs, DJVUs, videos, audios (i.e. LL-audios), SVGs: The template doesn't make sense for these. Of the 63M images about half are PD or CC0: the template does not makes sense for these. About half of the remaining files have been autoimported by bots from flickr and other external sources: bots do not use the template. The list of users from the query is basically a list of the main contributers of {own} content. Some are missing like GPSLeo, who only uses CC0 for his contributions. Missing is also a user (with two accounts) from the Phillipines who contributed more than 1.2M own jpgs, many of which probably would need to be deleted because of noFoPphillipines. Among the 43K active users most are admins or "house keepers" that either do not add much own content, or they come from the LL project and ever only contribute sound files. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Suthorn: I think we can still agree that hundreds of thousands of images are affected, right? Please provide a better query, if you can. Mine was the best estimate I could produce at the time. The number of pages linking to Template:Nofacebook is easily found, the list of uploaders of the related images should also be easily produced by minor modifications of my query. Last but not least, I can only see a handful of names reappearing in this discussion, half of them commenting in German (I can read it, but I am not sure that everyone else here can, and it is another hint that this perception of the issue is probably limited to some specific group of contributors), so I think I am right in stating that "NoFacebook" has only been in use by a small, but extremely active and now loud group of contributors. Do you disagree? Do you have better numbers to back your opinion? --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Warum sollen Benutzer nicht hingewiesen werden, dass eben CC mit FB nicht kompatibel ist? ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 09:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Man sollte auch mal berücksichtigen:
Der Antragsteller ist ein dorfbekannter Troll, der unter Sockenpuppe persönliche Fehden austrägt.
Die Stellungnahme der WMF ist nicht bindend, weil sie keine Stellungnahme der Community ist und vor allem weil sie sich nur auf CC bezieht.
Es ist noch immer so, daß man dem Fratzenbuch Rechte einräumt, wenn man Fotos hochlädt. Dies kann aber nur der Urheber. Somit sind Commons und FB zu 100% inkompatibel, was eine Nachnutzung durch Dritte angeht.
@Ralf Roletschek: Wenn man Rechte nicht hat, kann man sie auch niemandem einräumen. Der Facebook-Nutzer kann also die Rechte des Urhebers nicht berühren, wenn sie ihm nicht zuvor eingeräumt wurden. Auf Latein: Nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet. Daran ändern auch die AGB von Facebook nichts, denn dann wären sie ein Vertrag zu Lasten Dritter und solche haben für den Dritten (= den Urheber) keine Rechtswirkung. Ich sollte dazu vielleicht wirklich mal ein Erklärvideo machen, zumal ich in dieser Sache auch erst spät zur Einsicht kam.
You cannot grant rights that you don't have. A Facebook user therefore cannot touch the rights of the author if these rights have not been granted to him beforehand. In Latin: Nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet. Facebook's T&Cs do not change this, because then they would be a contract to the detriment of third parties and such contracts have no legal effect for the third party (= the author). Maybe I really should make an explainer video about this some time, especially since I only came to really understand this rather late. --Gnom (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Und eben das soll diesem Facebook-User mit dem Template gesagt werden. Der Facebook-User weiß das nicht. Mir ist schon klar, dass der Facebook-User das Template garnicht bemerken wird und wenn doch nicht glauben und wenn doch nicht beachten. Dennoch ist es ein Versuch, dem Facebook-User zu helfen, nicht aus Unwissenheit etwas falsches zu machen. Ich habe einen Entwurf für ein anders formuliertes Template gemacht, auf dieser Seite verlinkt und inzwischen mehrfach darauf hingewiesen, aber soweit für mich erkennbar hat das keiner der Diskutanten hier angesehen, geschweige denn kommentiert, weder begrüßt noch abgelehnt. --C.Suthorn (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Du meinst das hier? Sieht gut aus, passt und ist eine klare Warnung. Ich habe meins bislang nicht angepasst, weil ich von den hochbezahlten JuristInnen der WMF erwartet hätte, dass sie sich hier mal entsprechend auslassen, und nicht solch Unsinn über's Knie brechen, wie es bei der Änderung der Meta-Seite getan wurde. Wir sind hier nicht die Erfüllungsgehilfen solcher Datenkraken wie Fratzenbuch, Kugel o.ä., im Gegenteil. Eine Facebookisierung ist strikt abzulehnen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ich möchte nicht, dass meine Bilder auf facebook von irgendjemand verwurstet werden. Damit das jede Dumpfbacke sicher mitbekommt wird das bei jedem Bild gesagt. ich habe keinen Bock auf das bla bla, wie das habe ich nicht gewußt. Wenn das Template gelöscht wird, wird es sicher auf zig User-Seiten erstellt und von daher eingebunden. Es ist also ziemlicher Schwachsinn, die zentrale Stelle zu beseitigen.
Mit welchem Recht werden hier Löschanträge auf User Seiten / User Unterseiten gestellt?
"Among the 43K active users most are admins or "house keepers" that either do not add much own content." Das ist fast schon eine Beleidigung, ich habe ca 20.000 Bilder beigetragen und das ist aus meiner Sicht nicht "much own content" - auch wenn ich ein "house Keeper" bin.
--Jörgens.MiTalk04:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Du betrachtest Housekeeper als Beleidigung? Die Bewohner des Planeten Golgafrincham haben das so gesehen und bitter bereut. Ich finde es jedenfalls gut von der B-Arche abzustammen, auch wenn ich hier nur Bilder publiziere. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Suthorn: Der Facebook-Nutzer muss gar nichts "wissen" und er macht auch nichts "falsch", wenn er ein CC-lizenziertes Bild hochlädt. Die in der Vorlage User:C.Suthorn/socialmedianotice0 getroffenen Aussagen sind leider sachlich falsch.
Facebook users do not need to "know" anything and they are not doing anything "wrong" when uploading a CC-licenced image. I'm afraid that the statements you made in the User:C.Suthorn/socialmedianotice0 template are factually incorrect.
@Ralf Roletschek: Nein, die Facebook-AGB sind kein Vertrag zu Lasten Dritter, da ein solcher Vertrag nach der Rechtsordnung ja unwirksam ist.
No, Facebook's terms of use do not violate the laws of third parties because the law does not allow this.
Wir warnen vor allem möglichen. Bitte Persönlichkeitsrechte einhalten, Bild unterliegt dem Markenrecht, Panoramafreiheit usw... Jedesmal warnen wir, daß das Bild eben nicht _beliebig_ weiterverwendet werden darf sondern Beschränkungen unterliegt. Und genau das warnen wir mit Fratzenbuchvorlagen. Der Benutzer dort macht ganz sicher etwas falsch, wenn er ein fremdes Bild hochlädt, ohne die Nutzungebedingungen einzuhalten. Welche Rechtsordnung betrachten wir überhaupt? Gemäß üblicher Auffassung hier wird sowohl US- als auch DACH-Recht betrachtet. Der FB-Nachnutzer begeht in 99% der Fälle eine URV, weil er es nicht besser weiß. Genau das soll ihm vermittelt werden. --Ralf Roletschek21:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ralf Roletschek: Das ist genau mein Punkt: Wenn ich ein von dir erstelltes, CC-lizenziertes Foto auf Facebook hochlade (und dabei Urheber und Lizenz nenne), begehe ich gerade keinen Urheberrechtsverstoß (und auch keinen Verstoß gegen die Facebook-Nutzungsbedingungen), weder nach deutschem noch nach US-Recht. Genau hier liegt der Rechtsirrtum, den die hier fraglichen Vorlagen weiterverbreiten.
This is exactly my point: If I upload a CC-licensed photo created by you on Facebook (stating the author and licence), I am not infinging your copyright (and I am also not violating Facebook's terms of use), neither under German nor under US law. This is precisely the legal error that these templates propagate.
Wenn du das machst, bist du einer der 1%, die sich bei FB um Urheberrecht scheren. Und du hast dann eines der wohl ebenfalls ca. 1% CC-Bilder von mir erwischt. Und du räumst FB Rechte ein, die ein Weiternutzen ermöglichen. Wenn jemand das Foto weiter "teilt" oder so (kenne mich da nicht aus), dann verschwindet auch der Urheber und die Lizenz.
Ich wurde bei WLM (oder war es WLE??) böse angefeindet, weil ich es gewagt habe, daran zu erinnern, daß auch die Orga von WLM auf Facebook die Lizenzbedingungen einhalten muß. Reaktion war, daß es Wikipedia doch auch nicht macht, ist doch nicht so schlimm. Keinerlei Einsicht, man wird es auch in Zukunft wie bisher machen und das Problem ist nicht ihrs.
Bei den paar CC-Fotos von mir interessiert es mich nicht sonderlich. Aber bitte zeige mir ein lizenzkonform von FB weitergenutztes GFDL-Foto. --Ralf Roletschek10:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ralf Roletschek: "Und du räumst FB Rechte ein, die ein Weiternutzen ermöglichen." – Nein, diese Aussage ist sachlich falsch. "Wenn jemand das Foto weiter "teilt" oder so (kenne mich da nicht aus), dann verschwindet auch der Urheber und die Lizenz." – Nein, diese Aussage ist sachlich falsch. "Aber bitte zeige mir ein lizenzkonform von FB weitergenutztes GFDL-Foto." – Genauso, wie es auf Wikipedia möglich ist, die GFDL einzuhalten, kann man sie auch auf Facebook einhalten.
"And you are granting FB rights that allow reuse." - No, this statement is factually incorrect. "If someone then to 'shares' the photo (I am not versed in this), then the author and the licence also disappear." - No, this statement is factually incorrect. "But please show me a GFDL photo re-used on FB in accordance with the licence" - Just as it is possible to comply with the GFDL on Wikipedia, it is also possible to comply with it on Facebook.
Wenn wirklich die Teilen-Funktion des Sozialen Mediums verwendet wird, und das geteilte den Bedingungen entsprach, dann ist das auch noch nach dem Teilen der Fall. Nun kann aber das geteilte vom ursprünglichen Nutzer unsichtbar gemacht oder gelöscht werden. Daher wird oft nicht geteilt, sondern ein Screeenshot gemacht (eventuell beschnitten) und dann dieser geteilt. Das wars dann mit der regelgerechten Verwendung. Am 1. August tritt die Digital Copyright Directive in Kraft. Was das praktisch bedeutet ist mir völlig unklar. Womöglich wird Facebook sich aus der EU zurückziehen, womöglich werden in den Uploadfiltern viele Sachen hängenbleiben. Das kann bedeuten, das garnichts mehr aus Commons in FB erscheint, oder dass auf einmal sehr viel mehr aus Commons dort erscheint. Ich möchte das "meine" medien verwendet werden. Aber entsprechend der Regeln. Wenn das bei Facebook geht: gut. Wenn das bei Facebook ginge, aber FB commmons komplett wegblockt: schlecht. Ich habe meine Uploads um ein (IPTC-)WebStatement ergänzt, das auf creativecommons/.../legalcode linkt. Vielleicht hilft das ja was in Zukunft. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The foundation's legal counsel has made it pretty clear that there is not really a major issue here. Some users above brought up how these licenses perhaps exist to get reusers of media to contact them and shell out money for a proper license; I'd never thought of that before, but I think it is antithetical to the purpose of the project. I also wonder how many of us have really read the Facebook terms of use; here is the relevant portion:
Permission to use content you create and share: Some content that you share or upload, such as photos or videos, may be protected by intellectual property laws.
You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use....
However, to provide our services we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a ‘license’) to use this content....
Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings)....
These terms implicitly define "your content" as "content you create and share", which limits the scope of the license to works of which you are the intellectual property holder (which would obviously be the only valid case, anyway).
I also support deletion on the grounds that it is categorically wrong for these templates to be characterizing uploading this content to facebook as "forbidden". The uploader would not be violating the license; facebook would be. Nothing is "forbidden" about uploading it. Mysterymanblue 06:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per comments from the WMF in Meta essay, failed undeletion request and previous DR. The argument that we need to do something with the websites that have unfriendly ToU isn't relevant here: we can't mention all such websites in file descriptions. Furthermore, WMF clarified that uploading such files isn't a breach of license as such rights couldn't have been transferred at all for non-self-made images. --rubin16 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was not recreated, I used the not deleted template by User:C.Suthorn as a new template. Please show me, how I can warn users, as it's very hard to follow the licens inwith uploading pictures to those antisocial media companies like facebook and the ilk. The essence of facebook is Cambridge Analytics and such evil stuff, we should not work for those evil companies. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)17:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to answer my question: How do you think is it proper to warn unsuspecting users of the traps of the antisocial networks like facebook and that ilk, that it is tough to upload pictures there and follow the licences. That was asked in this discussion here several times, but those sycophants of the antisocial networks and lazy users didn't give any coherent answer. There was a lot of blahblah, that it is possible, and yes, under certain very restricted and burdensome circumstances it is possible, but not just so. So: How to warn the so-called reusers, i.e. normally copyvio scammers, to follow the license and the intention of the original artists here, and not just kowtow to the might of the antisocial media? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)19:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposeDa kann ich Ralf nur zustimmen, CC und Fratzenbuch sind inkompatibel, und ds sollte de Dumpfbacken, die jeden Sch*** auf Fratzenbuch hochladen, sehr deutlich gesagt werden. Fratzenbuch geht mir am Allerwertesten vorbei, die sind a) bösartige Datenkraken und b) VT-Propagandaschleusdern, auf die darf keine Rücksicht genommen werden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment This template refers to meta:Legal/CC-BY-SA on Facebook which has been moved to meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media. It is interesting to see how WMF legal changed their opinion about this. Before, it was considered to be incompatible, now no issue is seen with that. There was a short notice on the talk page by Jrogers (WMF) but so far no response to the question by Gestumblindi. In my opinion, this issue should be discussed firstly more openly at COM:VPC before we head to delete such warnings. We had multiple discussions about this problem in the past, mostly refering to the past version of the Meta page. Whatever the outcome, I would recommend some changes in the wording of the template. Currently, the incompatibility is stated as a fact (“which is incompatible”, “It is not permitted”). My suggestion would be to be more careful as the terms of use of Facebook change frequently and as there exist multiple versions of these terms of use (those for Europe differ from those for the United States), and as many legal systems are involved. Hence, this could be rewritten without a link to Meta to something like “In the legal opinion of the copyright holder any of the given licenses are considered incompatible with the terms of use of Facebook as long as they require the work to be sub-licensable.” And who knows perhaps eventually Facebook provides the option to upload and share CC-BY- and CC-BY-SA-licensed works under the terms of these licenses on their site. In such a situation, this template would indeed spread confusion in its current version. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep for now, maybe change the wording, and I support restoring {{Nofacebook}} pending a more in-depth discussion. I think that the previous deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook wasn't properly discussed; and maybe a DR isn't the right place for this broader discussion at all. As AFBorchert points out, the contradiction between the deleted template {{Nofacebook}} and meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media is a rather new thing caused by a nearly unexplained total change of the views expressed on the Meta page; see discussion there. I hope that the WMF's legal team will at some point explain to us why their views on this issue have changed so radically, and what the new legal reasoning exactly is. As far as I know, Facebook still requests you to grant them certain extensive rights for any material posted, which you simply can't do if it's third-party CC-BY-SA material - which is therefore a violation of the TOU. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg_-Facebook_Bild-.jpg)
Info I posted a pointer to this discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, as it is a fundamental question that needs broader discussion/attention IMHO. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. --Túrelio (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete These templates are often used as part of a collection of vanity templates to drive potential users of images to contact the uploader off-wiki to secure a non-SA license (i.e., in exchange for money). The NoFacebook-type templates all falsely misinform the viewer that it is not permitted to use those images on Facebook, etc. Or that Facebook's TOS is incompatible with CC licenses. As an example, User:Raboe001/NoFacebook links to meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media as supposedly providing more guidance as to why you can't use tagged images on social media. What does the page say? Exactly the opposite. It does not violate the CC license to use CC images on social media. What is required is compliance with the license terms. In short, these templates serve a deceptive purpose and should be deleted.
