Hi all, So there is an issue we need to address. After sharing a couple of the recent Top 10 country photo posts from WLM 2011 on Facebook, I was gently reminded about an issue that has come up already with CC-BY-SA licensing and Facebook. The Wikimedia Foundation Legal and Community Advocacy department wrote some guidance on this matter (not legal advice, but an attempt to clarify): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Fac...
For the applicable section of CC-BY-SA, see 4(a) and 4(b) here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
The relevant part of the Facebook terms: "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Essentially, if you upload your own photo, you have the right to grant multiple licenses, so you would be fine. But as the guidance notes, if you're uploading others' photos, you don't have the right to grant a license. These Top-10 galleries are very nice, but they are also likely not a good idea with the way Facebook sub-licenses. I'm going to stop sharing these galleries on the Wikipedia Facebook page for this reason and start pointing to the Commons page where they are all listed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011_winners
I won't give others advice, since IANAL, but at a minimum, every WLM photo should be properly licensed, which means that it must have a link to the actual CC-BY-SA license page. For example, this photo is not quite licensed correctly. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=483806128315982&set=a.4838058849... In addition to the name of the author and the license text, it must have a link to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license page here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
For example, this one is missing all the necessary licensing info: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=489888381041090&set=a.4898883343...
Arguably these photos probably shouldn't even be on Facebook like they are, but again IANAL and I'm not giving you legal advice. That's a decision for you all to make.
thanks, Matthew
Hi Matthew,
The Russian photo was a copypaste error, I added the link at least similar to the other photos. If any of the other photos miss such a link, that is likely also an error on my side and I'd happily fix that.
Given the arguments you gave, it might indeed make sense to add the CCBYSA link & explicit mention after all. It'll be a tough job but well... it is a fair enough effort to make. This is something that hasn't been done with any of the images yet.
I personally find the Facebook terms on this kind of vague since they don't specify their 'license' very well. According to the Facebook FAQ it would also be allowed to post content when you have permission to post it - which I could claim to have through the CC-BY-SA license. As long as I follow the terms of that license of course (which indeed includes linking and mentioning the license).
Lodewijk
2012/8/16 Matthew Roth mroth@wikimedia.org
Hi all, So there is an issue we need to address. After sharing a couple of the recent Top 10 country photo posts from WLM 2011 on Facebook, I was gently reminded about an issue that has come up already with CC-BY-SA licensing and Facebook. The Wikimedia Foundation Legal and Community Advocacy department wrote some guidance on this matter (not legal advice, but an attempt to clarify):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Fac...
For the applicable section of CC-BY-SA, see 4(a) and 4(b) here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
The relevant part of the Facebook terms: "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Essentially, if you upload your own photo, you have the right to grant multiple licenses, so you would be fine. But as the guidance notes, if you're uploading others' photos, you don't have the right to grant a license. These Top-10 galleries are very nice, but they are also likely not a good idea with the way Facebook sub-licenses. I'm going to stop sharing these galleries on the Wikipedia Facebook page for this reason and start pointing to the Commons page where they are all listed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011_winners
I won't give others advice, since IANAL, but at a minimum, every WLM photo should be properly licensed, which means that it must have a link to the actual CC-BY-SA license page. For example, this photo is not quite licensed correctly.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=483806128315982&set=a.4838058849... In addition to the name of the author and the license text, it must have a link to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license page here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
For example, this one is missing all the necessary licensing info:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=489888381041090&set=a.4898883343...
Arguably these photos probably shouldn't even be on Facebook like they are, but again IANAL and I'm not giving you legal advice. That's a decision for you all to make.
thanks, Matthew
--
Matthew Roth Global Communications Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *https://donate.wikimedia.org*
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Yeah, it's a very gray area in the Facebook terms. And they would like not want to make a stink about it (because there's a very large amount of content on FB that probably violates licenses and trademarks). But if they were ever sent a DMCA takedown notice by the photographer, it might compel FB to act and they might argue that the uploader had given them permission by uploading it. I think it's certainly wise to add the link to the license, as you suggest.
-Matthew
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi Matthew,
The Russian photo was a copypaste error, I added the link at least similar to the other photos. If any of the other photos miss such a link, that is likely also an error on my side and I'd happily fix that.
Given the arguments you gave, it might indeed make sense to add the CCBYSA link & explicit mention after all. It'll be a tough job but well... it is a fair enough effort to make. This is something that hasn't been done with any of the images yet.
I personally find the Facebook terms on this kind of vague since they don't specify their 'license' very well. According to the Facebook FAQ it would also be allowed to post content when you have permission to post it - which I could claim to have through the CC-BY-SA license. As long as I follow the terms of that license of course (which indeed includes linking and mentioning the license).
Lodewijk
2012/8/16 Matthew Roth mroth@wikimedia.org
Hi all, So there is an issue we need to address. After sharing a couple of the recent Top 10 country photo posts from WLM 2011 on Facebook, I was gently reminded about an issue that has come up already with CC-BY-SA licensing and Facebook. The Wikimedia Foundation Legal and Community Advocacy department wrote some guidance on this matter (not legal advice, but an attempt to clarify):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/CC-BY-SA_on_Fac...
For the applicable section of CC-BY-SA, see 4(a) and 4(b) here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
The relevant part of the Facebook terms: "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)." https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
Essentially, if you upload your own photo, you have the right to grant multiple licenses, so you would be fine. But as the guidance notes, if you're uploading others' photos, you don't have the right to grant a license. These Top-10 galleries are very nice, but they are also likely not a good idea with the way Facebook sub-licenses. I'm going to stop sharing these galleries on the Wikipedia Facebook page for this reason and start pointing to the Commons page where they are all listed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011_winners
I won't give others advice, since IANAL, but at a minimum, every WLM photo should be properly licensed, which means that it must have a link to the actual CC-BY-SA license page. For example, this photo is not quite licensed correctly.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=483806128315982&set=a.4838058849... In addition to the name of the author and the license text, it must have a link to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license page here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
For example, this one is missing all the necessary licensing info:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=489888381041090&set=a.4898883343...
Arguably these photos probably shouldn't even be on Facebook like they are, but again IANAL and I'm not giving you legal advice. That's a decision for you all to make.
thanks, Matthew
--
Matthew Roth Global Communications Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *https://donate.wikimedia.org*
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
2012/8/16 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
Hi Matthew,
The Russian photo was a copypaste error, I added the link at least similar to the other photos. If any of the other photos miss such a link, that is likely also an error on my side and I'd happily fix that.
Given the arguments you gave, it might indeed make sense to add the CCBYSA link & explicit mention after all. It'll be a tough job but well... it is a fair enough effort to make. This is something that hasn't been done with any of the images yet.
I personally find the Facebook terms on this kind of vague since they don't specify their 'license' very well. According to the Facebook FAQ it would also be allowed to post content when you have permission to post it - which I could claim to have through the CC-BY-SA license. As long as I follow the terms of that license of course (which indeed includes linking and mentioning the license).
In Facebook's terms of use there is a claim that Facebook can sublicence the content, while in CC-BY-SA there is a clause cleary stated that you cannot sublicence the content but only release it under CC-BY-SA or compatible licence. IMHO just because of this reason one cannot upload CC-BY-SA licenced pictures to FB without direct copyright owner's agreement. When uploading antything to Facebook you agree on their terms of use, which means that the content is published under their licence, not CC-BY-SA even if you claim that you release under CC-BY-SA. Moreover - at least in case of our Polish part of WLM regulations we assure uploaders that we will re-use the pictures under CC-BY-SA conditions only.
Of course the owner of the copyright can do whatever he/she wants with their own works as CC-BY-SA is non-exlusive licence. Anyway, I think that danger that any WLM photographer may sue us is close to 0, but there are people who hate FB - so they can make a noise about it in Commons' discussion pages or e-mail lists.
Just for the record: If anyone objects to their photo being displayed in Facebook, I'm happy to remove it. No matter whether their objection is justified, that seems just like a good gesture towards the authors who put time and effort in producing free content.
The sublicensing clause cannot really be interpreted if you don't know under what license they will sublicense. I would assume that would be the same license as they received it under (in this case: CC BY-SA) - which is one of the parts where I think the text is quite vague.
Lodewijk
2012/8/16 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
2012/8/16 Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
Hi Matthew,
The Russian photo was a copypaste error, I added the link at least
similar
to the other photos. If any of the other photos miss such a link, that is likely also an error on my side and I'd happily fix that.
Given the arguments you gave, it might indeed make sense to add the
CCBYSA
link & explicit mention after all. It'll be a tough job but well... it
is a
fair enough effort to make. This is something that hasn't been done with
any
of the images yet.
I personally find the Facebook terms on this kind of vague since they
don't
specify their 'license' very well. According to the Facebook FAQ it would also be allowed to post content when you have permission to post it -
which
I could claim to have through the CC-BY-SA license. As long as I follow
the
terms of that license of course (which indeed includes linking and mentioning the license).
In Facebook's terms of use there is a claim that Facebook can sublicence the content, while in CC-BY-SA there is a clause cleary stated that you cannot sublicence the content but only release it under CC-BY-SA or compatible licence. IMHO just because of this reason one cannot upload CC-BY-SA licenced pictures to FB without direct copyright owner's agreement. When uploading antything to Facebook you agree on their terms of use, which means that the content is published under their licence, not CC-BY-SA even if you claim that you release under CC-BY-SA. Moreover - at least in case of our Polish part of WLM regulations we assure uploaders that we will re-use the pictures under CC-BY-SA conditions only.
Of course the owner of the copyright can do whatever he/she wants with their own works as CC-BY-SA is non-exlusive licence. Anyway, I think that danger that any WLM photographer may sue us is close to 0, but there are people who hate FB - so they can make a noise about it in Commons' discussion pages or e-mail lists.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hi Matthew, I'd take the freedom to disagree with you; as far as I know, the CC BY-SA licence (version 3.0, but also all the previous ones) does not require linking to its text (at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), not to mention pasting the whole text.
The only requirement is to attribute the author in the way specified by him/her, and in our case most of the time this means to mention the name of the author and the name of the licence. But taking into consideration Facebook's Terms of Use, it would obviously be safer to link to the licence, agreed.
On the other side, I would really like to see a legal case against Facebook, because it really seems weird if they could get a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide" licence for all content that is uploaded to their servers, especially if they could overrule a free licence like CC BY-SA simply by having such a phrase in their Terms of Use.
From the legal code, Section 4(a): "You must include a copy
of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform". [1]
And also... "You may not sublicense the Work". So, a CC-BY-SA work is not sub-licensable as required by the terms of use of FB.
[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
Vicenç
From: odder.wiki@gmail.com Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:12:39 +0200 To: wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] CC-BY on Facebook
Hi Matthew, I'd take the freedom to disagree with you; as far as I know, the CC BY-SA licence (version 3.0, but also all the previous ones) does not require linking to its text (at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), not to mention pasting the whole text.
The only requirement is to attribute the author in the way specified by him/her, and in our case most of the time this means to mention the name of the author and the name of the licence. But taking into consideration Facebook's Terms of Use, it would obviously be safer to link to the licence, agreed.
On the other side, I would really like to see a legal case against Facebook, because it really seems weird if they could get a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide" licence for all content that is uploaded to their servers, especially if they could overrule a free licence like CC BY-SA simply by having such a phrase in their Terms of Use.
-- Tomasz W. Kozłowski a.k.a. [[user:odder]]
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hi Tomasz, I'm not an expert in this, but the legal team at WMF interprets the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) references in sections 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c) of the legal code to mean that we must include the link to the legal code with every use of the image or other CC-BY material. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
We recently re-did our WMF blog format based on this interpretation.
-Matthew
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Matthew, I'd take the freedom to disagree with you; as far as I know, the CC BY-SA licence (version 3.0, but also all the previous ones) does not require linking to its text (at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), not to mention pasting the whole text.
The only requirement is to attribute the author in the way specified by him/her, and in our case most of the time this means to mention the name of the author and the name of the licence. But taking into consideration Facebook's Terms of Use, it would obviously be safer to link to the licence, agreed.
On the other side, I would really like to see a legal case against Facebook, because it really seems weird if they could get a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide" licence for all content that is uploaded to their servers, especially if they could overrule a free licence like CC BY-SA simply by having such a phrase in their Terms of Use.
-- Tomasz W. Kozłowski a.k.a. [[user:odder]]
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hi Matthew,
Op 16-8-2012 22:25, Matthew Roth schreef:
Hi Tomasz, I'm not an expert in this, but the legal team at WMF interprets the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) references in sections 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c) of the legal code to mean that we must include the link to the legal code with every use of the image or other CC-BY material. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
We recently re-did our WMF blog format based on this interpretation.
Don't we love legal stuff :-( The URI is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ and not http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode . Looks like your legal people didn't read http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Properties
Could you please get this fixed at the foundation blog?
Maarten
-Matthew
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tomasz W. Koz?owski <odder.wiki@gmail.com mailto:odder.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Matthew, I'd take the freedom to disagree with you; as far as I know, the CC BY-SA licence (version 3.0, but also all the previous ones) does not require linking to its text (at <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>), not to mention pasting the whole text. The only requirement is to attribute the author in the way specified by him/her, and in our case most of the time this means to mention the name of the author and the name of the licence. But taking into consideration Facebook's Terms of Use, it would obviously be safer to link to the licence, agreed. On the other side, I would really like to see a legal case against Facebook, because it really seems weird if they could get a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide" licence for all content that is uploaded to their servers, especially if they could overrule a free licence like CC BY-SA simply by having such a phrase in their Terms of Use. -- Tomasz W. Koz?owski a.k.a. [[user:odder]] _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org--
Matthew Roth Global Communications Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/ _https://donate.wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/_
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
On 08/16/2012 11:12 PM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote:
Hi Matthew, I'd take the freedom to disagree with you; as far as I know, the CC BY-SA licence (version 3.0, but also all the previous ones) does not require linking to its text (at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/), not to mention pasting the whole text.
The only requirement is to attribute the author in the way specified by him/her, and in our case most of the time this means to mention the name of the author and the name of the licence. But taking into consideration Facebook's Terms of Use, it would obviously be safer to link to the licence, agreed.
Attributing the author is *not* the only requirement, we are talking about CC-BY-SA, not about CC-BY. You have to also keep the license and *write* that too.
On the other side, I would really like to see a legal case against Facebook, because it really seems weird if they could get a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide" licence for all content that is uploaded to their servers, especially if they could overrule a free licence like CC BY-SA simply by having such a phrase in their Terms of Use.
Hi all,
I'm having some technical problems adding the link in the descriptions - in case you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet. Somehow Facebook doesn't allow that change in all images. I'm struggling a bit still what the reason for that is - maybe it doesn't like too many url's or too much text in a description.
Lodewijk
El lunes, 20 de agosto de 2012, Nicu Buculei escribió:
On 08/16/2012 11:12 PM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote:
Hi Matthew, I'd take the freedom to disagree with you; as far as I know, the CC BY-SA licence (version 3.0, but also all the previous ones) does not require linking to its text (at <http://creativecommons.org/**licenses/by-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>), not to mention pasting the whole text.
The only requirement is to attribute the author in the way specified by him/her, and in our case most of the time this means to mention the name of the author and the name of the licence. But taking into consideration Facebook's Terms of Use, it would obviously be safer to link to the licence, agreed.
Attributing the author is *not* the only requirement, we are talking about CC-BY-SA, not about CC-BY. You have to also keep the license and *write* that too.
On the other side, I would really like to see a legal case against
Facebook, because it really seems weird if they could get a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide" licence for all content that is uploaded to their servers, especially if they could overrule a free licence like CC BY-SA simply by having such a phrase in their Terms of Use.
-- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
______________________________**_________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/**wikilovesmonumentshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.**org http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Figured out what the problem was (the change actually was successful, but Facebook was simply in denial and only showed the change after a hard refresh and ignoring the warnings). Am updating the photo descriptions one by one now.
Lodewijk
El martes, 21 de agosto de 2012, Lodewijk escribió:
Hi all,
I'm having some technical problems adding the link in the descriptions - in case you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet. Somehow Facebook doesn't allow that change in all images. I'm struggling a bit still what the reason for that is - maybe it doesn't like too many url's or too much text in a description.
Lodewijk
El lunes, 20 de agosto de 2012, Nicu Buculei escribió:
On 08/16/2012 11:12 PM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote:
Hi Matthew, I'd take the freedom to disagree with you; as far as I know, the CC BY-SA licence (version 3.0, but also all the previous ones) does not require linking to its text (at <http://creativecommons.org/**licenses/by-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>), not to mention pasting the whole text.
The only requirement is to attribute the author in the way specified by him/her, and in our case most of the time this means to mention the name of the author and the name of the licence. But taking into consideration Facebook's Terms of Use, it would obviously be safer to link to the licence, agreed.
Attributing the author is *not* the only requirement, we are talking about CC-BY-SA, not about CC-BY. You have to also keep the license and *write* that too.
On the other side, I would really like to see a legal case against
Facebook, because it really seems weird if they could get a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide" licence for all content that is uploaded to their servers, especially if they could overrule a free licence like CC BY-SA simply by having such a phrase in their Terms of Use.
-- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
______________________________**_________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/**wikilovesmonumentshttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.**org http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org