Issue on deleting all videos i posted

For what it's worth, this is really not where this discussion should have happened, but since it began here, let us let it proceed. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

the above video were my own work meant to educate people on Rites and rituals in Zimbabwe. I struggled to post these videos as it was not simple like posting pictures. I did not even see the license issues it was not there. Please help keep the videos because they are of great value under rites and rituals. Mawakhiwe (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mawakhiwe: Hi, and welcome. Please choose a license and version from COM:L like {{Cc-by-4.0}}, indicate that on your uploads' file description pages, and also indicate that on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Traditional dance Bulawayo Zimbabwe.webm and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grandmothers teaching Girls how to pound maize to make samp.webm.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mawakhiwe: You added {{LicenceReview}} to your own pages, indicating that the content was first published elsewhere, and that the license needs to be reviewed. Did you mean to do that? If not, we can remove it. If you did mean to do that, where was it first published? - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

i did not mean that i needed you to review the Deleting Recommend action you made on my videos. Am very sory everything is confusing me. I do not even understand what i am suppose to do.

Pictures were easy to post but videos were very hard to post and they did not give me clear instructions on what to do and what not to do Mawakhiwe (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

i personally published all the work posted. Its just the confusion i have on the license issue. Mawakhiwe (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mawakhiwe: Let me ask directly: were any of these files posted elsewhere on the Internet before they were posted to Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

no there were only posted here Mawakhiwe (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mawakhiwe: So why add {{LicenceReview}}?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: given what she says here, it doesn't really matter why she added it, I'll remove it since it was clearly an error. - Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Commercial use, but payment demanded?

Does the 'free' definition for hosting content at Commons include content where commercial use requires the payment of a fee? (a fee to use, beyond any nominal fees as distribution costs of the content)

Is this clearly stated anywhere (either way) in our policies?

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Savage Rogue, Riminicomix 2021 (51366581077).jpg and the claim made, "the subject of the photograph may still refuse permission or demand payment for such reuse." Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Like trademarks: not a copyright restriction. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: No to the first question, covered as a special case of NC per COM:LJ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: that would be the case if the issue were copyrights, but not so for personality rights. Plenty of pictures on Commons—probably the majority of pictures of identifiable living people—would require a model release (which potentially could require a fee) if they were to be used in an advertisement in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"No Facebook" templates

I'm still occasionally encountering photos that include a notice to the reader saying something like It is not permitted to upload this image to Facebook or that Uploading to Facebook, Instagram or other social networks is expressly prohibited. There are currently tens of thousands of image descriptions that use the File:No Facebook.svg logo in some form.

Consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates in 2020 seems to have been that such statements aren't compatible with the CC licence, so aren't enforceable. Past discussions in this area (eg. 1, 2) have suggested that it may effectively become an ignorable kind of multi-licensing: by making this statement alongside a CC licence template, the uploader is in practice offering the image under both "regular CC no restrictions" and "CC but you can't use it on Facebook" licences, and a user is free to choose either one when reusing the image (so somebody wanting to post the image to Facebook can simply select the first licence). If that's true, all these templates are doing is misleading some Commons visitors who want to reuse an image on social media into thinking that they can't.

Can we get a statement in this policy, or elsewhere, about how Commons should handle "No Facebook" type statements from uploaders? If the consensus is that it's dual-licensing, would a scrupulous approach (given that some uploaders may no longer be active) be to hat such notices and display a clear message to the reader saying something like "the uploader has also dual-licenced this image with a version that cannot be used on Facebook; this second licence is non-binding and does not have to be followed, but you may click here to read it", and to notify the uploader in case they wish to (try to) retract their images on that basis? Belbury (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment while I've never used a template like this, I still don't see how a third-party upload to Facebook of a file licensed with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA can be compatible with that license. (A link posted on Facebook would, of course, be fine.) When you upload a file to Facebook, per the Facebook terms of service, you grant Meta "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" with no requirement to credit you or anyone else. It would appear to me that no matter how meticulous someone is in following the licensing terms of the CC-BY or CC-BY-SA in the text of their upload to Facebook, by uploading they cannot help making a grant of rights to Meta/Facebook (and anyone to whom they may choose to sublicense) that violates the terms of the CC license in question. Presumably if someone posted a similar grant of rights on their own personal or organizational site, that would violate the license (see the clause "You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions" at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en; similar language exists for CC-BY"). Why doesn't this have the same issue? - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• AIUI, the intention here is for quite a different situation from that which you describe.

The intention is not 'CC, but additionally don't use this on FB'.

Instead it's a recognition (arguably a correct assessment, but that's a separate question) that FB's behaviour (outside our control) is essentially incompatible with CC licences. It's impossible to post CC content to FB without breaching the CC licence, thus the licensor is warning a potential reuser to not post there. It's not any attempt to impose an extra (and CC-incompatible) restriction. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Whether it's correct is the underlying issue here. If there are different views on whether posting CC content to Facebook is in breach of the licence, is it appropriate to allow users to write their own interpretations as "it is not permitted" statements of fact in official-looking boxes?

A single template reflecting Commons' consensus, in Commons' voice, and linking to relevant policies and discussions, would seem more appropriate. Belbury (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury: I'd be fine with that; based on past discussions, though, I think we've had trouble establishing that consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

No doubt. We could have a template that explicitly reflected that lack of consensus, though. Something like "It is the uploader's personal view that this image cannot be shared on [Facebook/Instagram/social media/etc]. Commons has yet to adopt a policy on this: see [some links] for more information." Belbury (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment It seems to me a clarification of the existing license, rather than a restriction. Similar to how some users may put notice along the lines of 'this file is NOT public domain; attribution is required for reuse'. While technically the information is already there in the basic license so the statement might be regarded as redundant, it explains the situation to reusers who might otherwise be sloppy in license compliance. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  "It is not permitted to upload this image to Facebook" depends on Facebook not changing its license, but could be argued to merely be a clarification of what the situation is now. "Uploading to Facebook, Instagram or other social networks is expressly prohibited" is not really a clarification; it is an explicit prohibition, and it contradicts the CC license, as Mastodon and other social networks have no such requirements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury:  Keep per Andy Dingley.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)