Open main menu

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Licensing.

For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Licensing may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|Commons talk:Licensing}}.

For old discussions, see the Archives. Recent sections with no replies for 14 days may be archived.

Archived discussionsEdit


Is Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) allowed on the Commons? And if so why is it not in the list in the upload file?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMcMaster (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 July 2019‎ (UTC)
@MMMcMaster: Yes, it is allowed, see COM:L#Well-known licenses.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Facebook ban?Edit

Are all images which have ever been anywhere near Facebook banned from Commons?

Where and when was this decided? COM:FACEBOOK is a redlink. We should never have a "global ban" on anything if there isn't at least a simple link to the relevant policy.

What is a "Facebook image"? How is this defined? Does it require a link to the image on Facebook? How else do we determine an upload to Commons to be a "Facebook image"?

Must all images be deleted simply for appearing on Facebook? If it is a copy from Facebook (and how is that defined?) or does it also apply if a matching copy also appears on Facebook?

As it is, we have a number of admins who are deleting images for being "Facebook images" and for no more reason than that. Certainly none is given. It is unclear as to why Facebook is a problem, nor even how they are identified as being "Facebook images". And yet through all of this, there is no sign of any policy behind it, or documented guidelines as to how Commons (as a body) regards "Facebook images", merely the whim of a handful of admins.

Just a few examples would be Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 創造未來,迎接康莊 and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karen Melchior MEP (48306127612).jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Facebook's Terms of Use are incompatible with copying from Facebook and publishing here without owning the copyright (or without confirming beforehand that you own the copyright) because we don't allow Fair Use here. The metadata for images copied from Facebook clearly includes a string starting with "FBMD" such as "FBMD01000a9c0d000072330000e8720000767900000381000074ae000061120100871a0100d4260100fb330100bce10100" as "Special instructions" in the EXIF metadata. Some other images have their EXIF metadata scrubbed and are found existing on Facebook via reverse image search on Tineye, Google Images, or other methods I am not privy to. For such images, I typically advise uploaders to please have the copyright holder edit or comment on their post with COM:L compliant permission and post here the link to that permission, or send permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to the uploader and edit/post with the ticket number. If the uploader wants to use the file on English Wikipedia, they should please read WP:F.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Not that it really changes anything, but it might be worth noting here that files from Instagram (which is owned by Facebook) also have the FBMD metadata. LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  Comment The only Facebook files we should accept are selfies, when uploaded by the subject, as the uploader is obviously the copyright holder. But we usually do not accept them for other reasons. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Even in the case of selfies, sure the Facebook user is probably the copyright holder, but we need a link from that person to the Commons uploader.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean when the Commons contributor is obviously the same person as the depicted person. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • So where's a clear policy statement on this? Where's the definition of what "Facebook image" means, and how we objectively assess that? Because so far this seems to be one of those vague handwaves which a nominator can throw into a DR as supposedly unchallengeable – even when there's no evidence of being Facebook sourced, such as the EXIF. (see 1st example). The second example is itself an FB "selfie" that's being deleted anyway (I can't see much else as there are no links and I can't see the deleted image – although the nominator doesn't understand EU copyright law and the notion of "work for hire"). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Files that have appeared on the Internet already get the stink eye. Facebook is no exception.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • But how do we tell? We need some objective criteria for when we're going to call "Facebook" and "Needs deletion as a result". Just finding a file with no connection to Facebook and summoning the magic word in the DR nomination isn't good enough.
After all, we're perfectly happen to recycle bulk content from Flickr, Panaramio etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Facebook is generally not a useful source for media; though there can be exceptions - for example when a museum or library releases some clearly public domain images on their Facebook feed. Since Facebook compresses images, if the image is uploaded elsewhere like the institution's website, that version would be preferred, but on occasion it's only on Facebook. This is a rare exception, but an example of exceptions to the usual. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Photograph of sign with text?Edit

Can somebody take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alta Loma Historical Marker.jpg. The claim that this is a copyvio seems patently absurd to me, but would appreciate input from an expert. RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Why patently absurd? It's a lot of text, far too recent to be PD, and the erecting body has not released the text under a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It is four paragraphs of text, dated 1994. US historical markers with words are generally OK *if* the words are just short simple statements of fact (eg, "Writer John Smith born here, 1804"), or the markers are old enough to have been from when US copyright required notice and registration rather than being automatic. This example is too long and too new. No indication original is under free license. One might consider certain aspects of copyright law inconvenient, annoying, or even absurd, but laws are what they are, and on Commons we have to follow them as best we can -- to keep Wikimedia Commons a legitimate repository of free licensed material. Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Strange licenceEdit

I have a copyright issue about this series of uploads : I don't understand the copyright rules of the site, mentionning Stock photo licensing, often referred to as commercial licensing. Are these files allowed on commons? Or do they fall under this Getty licence agreement ?

--Havang(nl) (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Havang(nl): What do they have to do with Getty?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Licensing".