Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28/without BS

Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook

 * Free--PublicOnFacebook
 * Db-f9

Propose merging Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook with Template:Db-f9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Public photos at Facebook have not necessarily been produced by the user that hosts them. De728631 (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but not shown to be relevant. No policy requires the author be the publisher. Every aspect of what we require in a  free content license is covered.  Stefan2, please read free content .    -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello? Stefan2?   -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The legal Terms of Use of facebook say: "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." and "By "use" we mean use, run, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of."
 * Strong Oppose

As the template says, public content on facebook is free, but content just shared with friends or groups is not free. (If someone releases content under a free license they didn't own the copyright to in the first place, the license is not valid. Like with any other content published under a free license, this is the case with content published on facebook with a Public privacy setting.)

Any publishing by a facebook user using the Public setting is a release under a free content license. It could be an illegal release, but so could any upload here. We have to have more reason to delete it than merely the possibility that the release was illegal.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: while photos released on Facebook might be under public domain, (I'm not convinced) this tag would make us way too susceptible to flickrwashing and the like. Photos released on Facebook are often done by those who do not own the copyright. It is much harder to verify on Facebook whether the image is legitimate. This is a scary template to have around.  TLSuda  (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * TLSuda' : Can you say point to a specific aspect of what we require in a free content license that is missing from the license? As far as I can see, you're proposing it be deleted entirely because it MIGHT be misused.  Everything else is just handwaving.


 * Also, what template can I use for this free image? http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_40/695486/141001-thomas-eric-duncan-01_c329f931d5d1ac3db0e4c50698e59ebf.nbcnews-ux-960-800.jpg  It can be found here: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/texas-ebola-patient-had-contact-school-age-kids-perry-says-n215976 and on facebook here.  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 22:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (BS snipped. -Ed) (Conjecture left. -Ed :) An obscure disclaimer in the terms and conditions that most users haven't even read upon registering for FB is far less convincing than an actively chosen license a la Flickr. (More BS snipped. -Ed)


 * (More BS snipped. -Ed) (A lot more BS snipped. -Ed)

De728631 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm astounded by your line of thinking. You are saying we need proof beyond that that which we ask of any other kind of content source.  The fact that it is using the "Public" setting of Facebook is proof that the file was made available under a free license, much like the fact that a file is published on commons or wikipedia with a free license is proof that it's free content.  But you're demanding even more proof than that.  With respect to the image of Duncan: If A)Duncan legally uploaded the file using the "Public" setting of Facebook, then B)it's free content, and C)the use of my template is valid.  A implies B implies C. A => B => C. If you assert that the use of my template is invalid, then logic dictates that you are necessarily accusing the poor guy of illegal activity. ~C => ~A.  And WP:AGF should apply to non wikipedians, so you shouldn't do that.  Your claim that he obviously didn't take the photograph is far from a valid reason to not AGF.    -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 00:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but AGF does not apply to copyright matters. Copyright problems at Wikipedia, be they media or text-related, have always been handled from a principle of precaution. And Duncan's photo was a bad example for making your case because of the following: Mr Duncan may have had permission from the original photographer to upload that image, but then we would need a documentation for it and we need the name of the photographer. For the very same reason we have Di-no permission; not to mention that 'Flickr washing' got its name from Flickr for a reason. And as I said, the Facebook conditions do lack a specific permission for commercial re-use which is required for any free license on Wikipedia and Commons. (Struck; unsupported claims. -Ed) De728631 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So why do we allow images from flickr, despite the risk of 'Flickr washing' ? If Mr Duncan had posted the image there, with a free license, and I'd uploaded it from there, it would be appropriate to tag it Di-no permission?  Where is that policy?   You seem not to be open to discussion.  You have said twice that the Facebook conditions lack permission for commercial re-use and I can't make you read the conditions to see that they're there, all I can tell you is that they're there and quote them, as I've done.  It seems dishonest on your part, in the WP:IDHT sense, to say "the Facebook conditions do lack a specific permission for commercial re-use" when you seem perfectly capable of seeing that Facebook conditions include permission for commercial re-use. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 22:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Bluster removed. - Ed.) Facebook is much more susceptible to having issues with copyright violations. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (100% BS) De728631 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

De728631, it is foolish to equate being the author of a work and being the copyright holder of the work. Donating copyrighted materials does NOT do that. And yet you do exactly that with your "Which is the same..." false claim. Worse than that, you and and Denniss have essentially asserted Mr Duncan lied. Shame on you both. Please retract the claim and false equivalency assertion. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 06:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither anything I said here or in the template is inconsistent with what you mentioned from Donating copyrighted materials. Your answer to my question, "Why do we allow images from flickr?" is: Because, in my personal opinion, "Facebook is much more susceptible to having issues with copyright violations." so that's the rule that I'm going to us my admin powers to enforce, even though no objective evidence whatsoever that supported that opinion has been provided. But your answer is no good. I don't want to do the work of reviewing each of the uploads that use this license to figure out if any had been uploaded illegally to facebook. We don't have time for that. is not a valid reason to delete(/merge/void) this template. It's contrary to the principles upon which wikipedia was founded. But at least it's an honestly expressed opinion. (In TLSuda's words: "This is a scary template to have around.")

Why is this ridiculous question, :"FB says that others may use, perform, or display public content but are they also allowed to do that for profit?": You know what license "terms do not explicitly include the commercial option that  is required for free licences at Wikimedia projects?" according to you? The CC BY-SA 3.0 License. But it would be WP:POINTy to speedy any, or the bulk of, our content just to prove a point.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Dramatization
Judge: Do you have proof that the content is free?
 * Yes, your honor. I have proof that the file was made available under a free license. Look, archiveDOTtoday/5sLp7 proves it was publicly available on facebook, and the license for content made publicly available on facebook is a free content license.  The only way it could be there without having provided under a free license would be if it was illegally uploaded.

Judge: was there any evidence that it was illegally uploaded?
 * No, your honor. Judge: OK.  Case dismissed.

-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 00:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While this is funny, I can tell you've never read any report of an actual copyright infringement case.  TLSuda  (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Shame. I make a valid point you don't like so you resort to ad hominem attack.  Please be civil.    Making false assertions about editors like that is bad form and uncivil.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 06:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes

RfC on Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook validity
When users upload files, they have to tag their uploads with a template called a copyright tag. Please comment on whether the free content copyright license tag Free--PublicOnFacebook is valid, per our policies, or if the tag and all the uploaded files that rely on it should be deleted. It's intended for use on local copies of free content from facebook. It's argued that a poster may not know that when content is posted using the "Public" setting of Facebook, it's thereby licensed as free content, because the legal Terms of Use of facebook say: "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." and "By "use" we mean use, run, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of." so the license may not be valid. When facebook users grant a license to work they don't have the right to grant by misusing facebook in this way, it is they who are liable, not someone who relies on that license, whether that's me, facebook, wikipedia or any other reuser of what is (based on the facts available to the reusers) freely-licensed content. Should we delete the template because it can be misapplied in this way? 23:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes