Talk:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi all, I want to note that we did a rewrite of this article. We've received several requests to update this article in light of frequent use of CC licensed materials on social media by many users, orgs, and cultural institutions. It's now updated to cover social media more broadly and details appropriate use and attribution requirements for the most common type of CC licenses for works on Wikimedia sites. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF): I find the quite radical change from the views formerly expressed in this article a bit surprising, particulary this part: "It should be noted that there has been past guidance that the terms of some social media websites such as Facebook or Twitter conflict with CC license conditions. However, we want to clarify that this characterization is not accurate. Social media has become a ubiquitous and important way to share works that are part of the commons so that others may have access to them and be able to reuse them." Maybe you could elaborate a bit on why the previous characterization is no longer considered "accurate"? I mean, it still seems to be the case that Facebook requests you to grant them certain extensive use rights for all uploaded content. That is something you simply can't do if it's third-party content (images) with, for instance, a CC-BY-SA license - so you violate Facebook's TOU by uploading such images. Social media has become a ubiquitous and important way to share works that are part of the commons so that others may have access to them and be able to reuse them is certainly true, but I don't quite see the connection to a legal assessment in this statement. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to grant facebook any right whatsoever for my pictures, facebook is evil. OK, I have to live with it, that a CC-BY-SA allows even such evil entities like facebook to use my pictures unter exactly the licence, that I granted, but not a iota less. Facebook has no compatible licence, so they should not be used there. Or has something changed wirth the incompatible licences of facebook and such? I could not care less but about the convenience of Facebook and that ilk, I care about my licences. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Da hier was rechtliches betroffen ist, pinge ich mal @Gnom:, ob und was er dazu zu sagen hat. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
For comparison: The view formerly expressed (CC-BY-SA content produced by third parties can't pe posted to Facebook) versus the current view (posting to Facebook is fine). I still can't find an explanation by Jrogers (WMF) or someone else from the legal team for this change of opinion, especially as the former view seems plausibly based on what CC-BY-SA and Facebook's TOU actually say, and the current view on the other hand refers to social media as "a ubiquitous and important way to share works ..." but no longer is giving a really tangible reasoning. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: I think I understand (and concur with) Jacob's reasoning: When I upload someone else's CC-licensed work on Facebook, I may be violating Facebook's terms of use (because Facebook asks me to provide them with usage rights which I do not have), but in doing so, I am not violating the CC licence as long as I provide the necessary attribution. In other words: Nothing in the CC license prevents me from uploading CC-licenced works on Facebook, only Facebook's terms of use might, but that is a problem between Facebook and me and not between me and the photographer. Or, in legalese: We need to avoid confusing limitations that only take effect inter partes. --Gnom (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Medium has changed their terms of service again, removing the bit this article references at the bottom. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
That's unfortunate about the Medium change, I'll update to take that bit out. They were good for a number of years though, so I'm very sad about that. On the bigger question here, I actually think the article has always been wrong since it was originally published in 2012, and we had the opportunity to review and update it recently, which is why I changed it. It was offering an opinion that was a particularly risk-averse heuristic, rather than accurately describing the way the CC licenses work. 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. They may have misrepresented something to the website, but that is a claim strictly between the website owner and the person making the post, it does not involve the original licensor. Moreover, in many years of social media companies in operation, we have no examples of websites ever pursuing anyone for this kind of misrepresentation. It's up to them to decide what parts of their terms they enforce and they have the discretion to not enforce them. The practical reality as noted in the updated article is that we see even the people responsible for stewarding these licenses sharing things over social media without any problems occurring. Also, it is important to note that this issue of someone sharing a work on social media in compliance with the license does not affect the rights of the original licensor at all. If you later see someone else, including a social media company, improperly using a work you released under a CC license, you still have all normal claims under copyright law you would in any other situation where someone used your work without complying with the license. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jrogers (WMF), Quiddity (WMF), and Gestumblindi: The change is so radical it can hardly be called an update. I strongly suggest reverting the article to the last revision before the massive change, moving the page back to Legal/CC BY-SA on Facebook, create a new page here with the new article and mark the old one as historical and link to the new page. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Support Support Alexis Jazz. This radical WMF change has to be reverted asap. This was a page about Facebook, and it was not wrong. Now it is generalizing about all social media platforms altogether - this really can't be serious. The TOU of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, TikTok and many others strongly contradict most 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 by declaring this would fit together, you reduce all licences to 'public domain'. This is very wrong. --.js 07:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)