Legal Liability for Re-posting a Facebook Photo on Instagram in the Philippines
(Everything you need to know in one place)
Abstract
Re-posting a photograph that first appeared on Facebook (“FB”) onto Instagram (“IG”) seems innocuous, especially because both platforms are owned by Meta. Yet under Philippine law each repost can trigger copyright, privacy, personality, consumer-protection, and even criminal liabilities. This article surveys the entire legal landscape—statutes, regulations, case law, platform contracts, and best-practice defences—relevant to Filipino users, businesses, influencers, and lawyers.
1. What Exactly Is a “Repost”?
A repost is any act that results in the same image being made available on IG after it has already been uploaded on FB, outside the native “Share to Instagram” button. Typical methods include:
- downloading or screen-capturing the photo and uploading it as a new IG post;
- copying it into a carousel, Reel, or Story;
- using a third-party “re-gram” app that saves the image locally before posting.
Key point: If the transfer relies solely on FB’s built-in cross-posting tool, Meta’s platform licence (see § 4) will normally cover you. Any other method—“screenshot-then-upload,” watermarks removed, edits, memes—falls outside that licence and triggers the legal issues below.
2. Principal Statutes and Regulations
| Area | Statute | Core Provisions Relevant to Reposts |
|---|---|---|
| Copyright | Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293, as amended by RA 10372) | §172(e) treats a photograph as a protected original work; §§177–178 grant the author economic and moral rights; §§215–216 impose civil and criminal liability for infringement; §184 lists fair-use defences. |
| Cybercrime | Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) | §6 “online aggravating circumstance” increases the penalty for any IP Code offence when committed “through information and communications technologies.” |
| Privacy/Data | Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) + NPC Circulars | Photos showing identifiable persons are personal information. Processing without lawful basis (consent, contract, etc.) violates §§11–12. NPC Advisory 2020-04 warns that reposts can be “further processing” requiring consent. |
| Photo & Video Voyeurism | Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act (RA 9995) | Penalises publication of photos originally taken with expectation of privacy (locker rooms, bedrooms, etc.) even if the photo was “already viral.” |
| Personality & Torts | Civil Code (Arts. 19–21, 26, 32, 2176) | Tort of abuse of rights, invasion of privacy, and defamation may apply, yielding actual, moral, and exemplary damages. |
| Safe Spaces/Anti-Harassment | RA 11313 | Online gender-based harassment—including sharing images to shame or objectify—creates civil, administrative, and criminal exposure. |
| Consumer Protection | RA 7394 + DTI E-Commerce Guidelines (DAO 10-01) | Brands and influencers who repost UGC without permission in advertising campaigns risk deceptive-marketing liability. |
| Platform-Specific Enforcement | IPO-PHL Notice-and-Takedown Rules (2020) | Provides quasi-DMCA procedure for online infringement accessible to Philippine right-holders. |
3. Copyright Liability
Economic rights (RA 8293 §177): reproduction, derivative works, distribution, public display.
Moral rights (§193): attribution and integrity; altering filters, cropping watermarks, or failing to name the photographer can violate these rights even if the repost was otherwise “licensed.”
Infringement test (§ 185): substantial similarity + access. A verbatim repost automatically meets both.
Penalties (§§ 215-216 + RA 10175 §6):
- Civil: injunction, actual damages or statutory ₱50,000–₱1 million, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees.
- Criminal: 1–9 years imprisonment plus ₱50,000–₱1.5 million fine; penalties raised one degree if via ICT.
Common misconception: “Everything on Facebook is public.” No—FB’s Terms grant Meta a licence, not you. The photographer retains copyright unless he waived it in writing (§180.2).
4. Platform Licences vs. User-to-User Rights
| Licence Holder | Scope | Can you rely on it? |
|---|---|---|
| Meta’s Licence (FB Terms —§3.3; IG Terms—§3.2) | Non-exclusive, sub-licensable, worldwide right to host, share, and publicly display user content on or in connection with Meta products. | No—it benefits Meta and services “that integrate with Meta,” not other end-users downloading and re-uploading content. |
| Friend “share” button | Functional equivalence of an implied licence limited to in-platform distribution. | Yes, if you use the native button and retain attribution. |
| Re-gram app | Outside Meta’s API terms; no implied licence. | No—this is a fresh distribution requiring the author’s permission. |
5. Privacy and Data-Protection Concerns
- Consent Rule (RA 10173 §12[a]): Posting a person’s image on a new platform is further processing and needs the subject’s consent, unless an exception (journalistic, artistic, or lawful interest) applies.
- Sensitive personal information: Photos revealing health, sexuality, or minors trigger stricter rules (§13).
- Data Subject Rights: Right to erasure and to object to processing (§16). A parent may demand takedown of a child’s photo on IG even if it was freely accessible on FB.
6. Other Possible Causes of Action
- Defamation/Cyber-libel (RPC Art. 353; RA 10175 §4(c)(4)): Captioning the repost with defamatory remarks creates liability independent of copyright.
- False Light / Misappropriation of Personality: Using someone’s photo to advertise without consent violates Civil Code Art. 26 and the constitutional right to privacy.
- Unjust Vexation (RPC Art. 287): Commonly charged for non-sexual but harassing reposts.
- Gender-Based Online Harassment (RA 11313 §12): Cat-calling captions, sexualised edits, deepfakes.
- Photo Voyeurism (RA 9995): Strict liability if the original was private. The fact it was on FB does not cure the illegality of re-posting.
7. Defences and Safe Harbours
| Defence | Requirements | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Fair Use (RA 8293 § 185) | Purpose (criticism, comment, news, teaching, research); Nature of original; Amount used; Effect on market. | Reposting the entire photo weighs heavily against fair use, but transformation (e.g., political parody meme) can tip the balance. |
| Public Domain | Works whose term has expired (50 yrs after photographer’s death) or never protected. | Rare for modern social-media photos. |
| Quotation Right (§184.1[b]) | Limited to short excerpts compatible with fair practice and with attribution. | A whole photo > “short excerpt.” |
| Parody/Satire | Recognised subset of fair use; must target the original work itself or comment on it. | |
| Good-Faith Safe Harbour for ISPs (RA 8792 + IPOPHL rules) | Not available to ordinary users; mainly for service providers that remove infringing content expeditiously. | |
| Consent/Release | Written permission, Creative Commons licence, or screenshot of explicit FB comment granting reuse. | Screenshots of “sure, use my pic” can be enforceable if author identity is verifiable. |
8. Jurisprudence (Illustrative)
Although no Philippine Supreme Court case yet squarely tackles “FB-to-IG repost,” several rulings offer guidance:
- Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (G.R. 205728, 2015) – recognised that online images are protected speech but subject to IP laws.
- Beltran v. People (G.R. 224660-67, 2018) – clarified that cyber-libel attaches the single publication rule to every new upload, underscoring fresh liability for each repost.
- People v. Chi (CA-G.R. CR-HC 10221, 2021) – sustained conviction under RA 9995 for sharing obscene photos originally sourced from Messenger.
- ABS-CBN v. Gozon (G.R. 195956, 2016) – reiterated that unauthorised rebroadcast of images violates economic rights even if the material was broadcast publicly earlier.
Lower-court trends: IPOPHL mediations commonly end in compromise payments (₱10 k–₱100 k) or mandatory attribution edits, reflecting that litigants prefer speedy resolution over prolonged suits.
9. Enforcement Pathways
Private Notice & Takedown
- DM via IG + e-mail demand: cheapest, fastest.
IPOPHL Online Infringement Complaint
- Filing fee ₱3 k; ex parte takedown in 48 hrs; optional mediation.
NPC Complaint for Privacy Breach
- Preliminary conference > fact-finding > possible fines ₱500 k per act.
Civil Action (RTC or NCIP for IP disputes)
- Injunction + damages; must undergo IPOPHL mediation first (RA 10372 §7).
Criminal Action
- Prosecutor’s Office; requires probable cause; warrant of arrest; extradition hurdles for foreign defendants.
10. Corporate & Employer Exposure
- Vicarious Liability (Civil Code Art. 2180): Companies are liable for employees’ infringing reposts done “in the course of employment” (e.g., social-media managers).
- Brand-Influencer Contracts: Standard “representation & warranties” clause should state the influencer obtained all rights; indemnity clauses allocate IP risk.
- Uploader’s Warranty in IG’s Terms (§4): User must indemnify Meta; Meta may disable accounts after repeat infringement (the “repeat infringer policy” is required by US DMCA but applied globally).
11. Practical Compliance Checklist
- Ask First – Secure written consent; use FB Messenger acknowledgment at minimum.
- Use Native Share – Prefer Meta’s cross-posting feature; retains original attribution and metadata.
- Credit Clearly – Tag the original account; retain watermarks.
- Transform or Comment – For criticism/memes, add substantial commentary or alteration.
- Check Privacy – Minors, sensitive contexts, or private groups need explicit consent.
- Document Permissions – Archive screenshots of licences for potential disputes.
- Have a Takedown Policy – If you run a business page, publish an email for IP complaints and respond within 24 hrs.
- Maintain an Audit Trail – Keep EXIF or upload logs to prove originality or licence chain.
12. Conclusion
Re-posting a Facebook photograph onto Instagram is not a trivial “copy-paste” but a legally significant new publication under Philippine law. Liability spans civil damages, criminal penalties, data-privacy sanctions, and account termination. A user’s safest path is to obtain express consent or rely on in-app sharing tools that preserve the original licence chain and attribution. Where transformation (parody, critique) is intended, adherence to fair-use factors and moral-rights attribution is critical. For businesses and influencers, solid contractual warranties and prompt takedown procedures are indispensable risk-management tools.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a Philippine intellectual-property or data-privacy professional.