FB Ads account disabled

[Acli]

Hello, recently I have tried to promote an offer about a voucher giveaway, and made 6 images to promote through paid facebook ads.After sending the offer for review my account got disabled.In the mail that told me this, they said that my account was disabled for ''Policy Violation''.And here's the problem, i don't know what i did wrong.
Here's one of the images. Can someone help me with this problem? I want to know what I did wrong for the future, to not repeat this fault.

 

[MarketKing]

Hello, recently I have tried to promote an offer about a voucher giveaway, and made 6 images to promote through paid facebook ads.After sending the offer for review my account got disabled.In the mail that told me this, they said that my account was disabled for ''Policy Violation''.And here's the problem, i don't know what i did wrong.
Here's one of the images. Can someone help me with this problem? I want to know what I did wrong for the future, to not repeat this fault.

One Question : Have you Used Direct Affiliate Link?
or with your Own Domain and Pre-Landing Pages?
If Yes Maybe this is the First Reason , FB Don't Like Aff Links..

 

[Acli]

One Question : Have you Used Direct Affiliate Link?
or with your Own Domain and Pre-Landing Pages?
If Yes Maybe this is the First Reason , FB Don't Like Aff Links..

I didn't use direct affiliate link.

 

[Graybeard]

next is a trademark --was the voucher for that store?

 

[Acli]

next is a trademark --was the voucher for that store?

Yup, the voucher was for that store.

 

[bruce bates]

Considering I can check google images and see that photo was not taken by you (I am assuming), my immediate guess would b that they consider it both branded content and a copyright violation. You can't just take a photo you find online, crop it, add a border, and use it in an ad - even if that photo is a picture of a store. Do you have the permission of the person who is displayed in photo? There are a number of reasons I could see that being a violation.

 

[Acli]

Oh, now i understood what i did wrong, thank you.

 

[T J Tutor]

After sending the offer for review my account got disabled.

They don't disable accounts when a campaign or ad is sent in for review. It was not disbled for that reason. There is something else going on here. Something more, likely a different campaign or ad you were running.

Maybe you did some cloaking?

 

[Hunter Neesh]

Hi there. I used to run Sweepstake CPA offers on Facebook. If you use another brand's trademark or label in your campaign you run the risk of getting your account shut down, especially if it's a new account. Using certain brands will get you a copyright strike, if you do it 2 or more times you'll definitely be shutdown. That's what happened to me. If you have access to multiple FB ad accounts then you can run these type of offers, but they will always catch up with you eventually LOL

 

[bruce bates]

They don't disable accounts when a campaign or ad is sent in for review. It was not disbled for that reason. There is something else going on here. Something more, likely a different campaign or ad you were running.

Maybe you did some cloaking?

They will if your image is a copyright violation.

 

[T J Tutor]

They will if your image is a copyright violation.

Yes, but they are required by law to verify the rights before taking action. By federal statute, only the copyright owner, or their authorized representative, may file a report of copyright infringement. Third parties are not permitted to act on infringement in any way without the copyright owner verifying a material is infringing on them. Facebook cannot make the claim of copyright infringement without proof from the owner.

I've had them message me many many times asking for verification of image rights. They have never disabled my account for submitting images they questioned. They always ask me.

I always file an eCO of every image and only use my own photos and/or pay for the rights of an image. The eCO is simple and only costs $35 per filing. You can simply give a copy of the filing to the traffic source that questions a photo and this usually satisfies them.

Per FB:
"If your video or photo was removed for copyright reasons, you'll receive an email and a notification about the removal. Please use the information in the email and notification to learn more about your options, such as confirming you wish to post the content if you have the rights to use it.

Learn more about copyrights in our Help Center".

 

[bruce bates]

Third parties are not permitted to act on infringement in any way without the copyright owner verifying a material is infringing on them. Facebook cannot make the claim of copyright infringement without proof from the owner.

I am not sure where you guys get your info but that is not legally correct at all. A website, unless under an obligation from a terms of service contract agreement, can remove any content it wants from its servers except in instances where removal would constitute an anti-trust issue. One can easily verify this to be so by watching the number of people who have content (and accounts) randomly removed from both facebook and twitter. This is a hot topic in the political world where people get content removed all the time simply because the website admin decides they don't like the content displayed.

There are several writing platforms that exist that only allow you to republish your own work on their website, and they will remove any content they find that is posted elsewhere on the web and require you to prove you own it before allowing you to re-add said content. publish0x immediately pops into my head for using this practice.

 

[T J Tutor]

can remove any content it wants from its servers

I don't disagree with that at all. I simply am stating that some of what has been said above regarding actions taken regarding copyright infringement was incorrect and posted a link to reference FB's own policies.

but that is not legally correct at all

I'll put my attorney up against that any day. It is legally correct, and it is taken directly from the U.S. Copyright Office. Third parties can only report, they cannot legally act on infringement without evidence of infringement and that evidence must come from the owner.

I am not sure where you guys get your info

48 years in business and having two law firms that have my back.

I feel, and having read many of your posts, you frequently mis-interpret some posts.

I am happy you're here and engaging, but you seem to be always right.

 

[bruce bates]

I am happy you're here and engaging, but you seem to be always right.

1 I am a New Yorker born and raised. So yeah I am thick headed like that.
2 I rarely speak unless I am sure of what I am saying.
3 I argue my point until I am absolutely proven I am wrong. (back to that item 1 again)

That said you are factually correct and I will admit that. The problem is as is the case with most things, proving why someone did something is very hard. No one is ever going to say "we removed it becaus ewe believed it to be a copyright violation" unless they have a DMCA letter in their hand. More likely they will say "we removed it because we wanted to and its our right to".

So on this, I admit I am wrong and you are correct and I will shut up now.

 

[T J Tutor]

1 I am a New Yorker born and raised. So yeah I am thick headed like that.

I'm an up-stater man, in the Finger Lakes. Not a concrete jungle, but I lived in several of them over the years before finally settling here. Originally from the Syracuse area and an S.U. Grad. Denver and Vegas were my haunts for 25 years.

2 I rarely speak unless I am sure of what I am saying.
3 I argue my point until I am absolutely proven I am wrong. (back to that item 1 again)

ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!

proving why someone did something is very hard. No one is ever going to say "we removed it becaus ewe believed it to be a copyright violation" unless they have a DMCA letter in their hand. More likely they will say "we removed it because we wanted to and its our right to".

We are on the same page my friend, I always understand your points, but like you, I'm thick headed as well. It's what makes things work for us.

I will shut up now.

Don't ever shut up brother, you bring life to the party! We're happy you're here!

 

[bruce bates]

I have lived everywhere there is to live in NY from the City to the Falls and everywhere in between. I actually walked the entire length of route 20 once from Boston were it begins to Seattle where it ends - so Through Albany, Cobleskill, Cooperstown, Syracuse, Seneca nation, Jamstown.... you name it every town and city all the way across the state (and country).

I now live in KS about 10 minutes from Colorado. Denver is my home away from home for countless reasons *cough cough*

 

[T J Tutor]

Bottom line -- Facebook is an asshole operation

Like I say: total assholes. Their game their rules.

That's my take here I agree with Hunter -- Facebook will do as they please unless that have a lot to lose.

Agreed, they lack integrity in so many ways. However, it is a beast that can bring in the sheckles as a traffic source. Everyone hates them, but yet so many keep going back for more!

 

[Graybeard]

I think Facebook is just covering their ass on the basis of a suspicious instance.

It probably costs more money to administrate an action, if notified, on the image's copyright infringement than the ad revenue is worth to Facebook.

• Who are you and how much money are you spending on ads?

I don't know the original source of that image but;

1. If it's a street shot then it was taken with no contract or consent and was simply what was in plain view -- none of what is in it is *owned* by anyone as it is what is called an impromptu event. The photographer has a murky copyright as he was the first to publish (obviously -- it got scraped and pinched) the exception is formal notice of copyright prior to being published.
2. Who is the girl on the public street? She may have a right of publicity case if her image is being used commercially for profit.
3. The retail chain next sign and their trademark is being used in good faith and I think that fair use.

Bottom line -- Facebook is an asshole operation </case closed>

Hi there. I used to run Sweepstake CPA offers on Facebook. If you use another brand's trademark or label in your campaign you run the risk of getting your account shut down, especially if it's a new account. Using certain brands will get you a copyright strike, if you do it 2 or more times you'll definitely be shutdown. That's what happened to me. If you have access to multiple FB ad accounts then you can run these type of offers, but they will always catch up with you eventually LOL

Like I say: total assholes. Their game their rules.

That's my take here I agree with Hunter -- Facebook will do as they please unless that have a lot to lose.