Talk:Wikinews interviews candidate for Cleveland mayor Arthur Kostendt

Forwarded
I have forwarded two e-mails to scoop, the first being all questions posed, the second Mr Kostendt's responses to them all. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Arthurkostendt.jpg
Generally, Wikinews doesn't allow images to be sourced from other news organizations like how this photo is stated to be sourced from the Cleveland Scene. The photo is available on at the candidate's website, in which case it could be used as a publicity photo. Perhaps it could be cleared for use on Wikinews with the campaign. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 04:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll mark it as a 'screenshot' in that regard then, as initially it was not in the jpg format. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is more to do with copyright, since the owner of the rights to use the photo is the photographer, or the mayoral candidate himself/his campaign. Image use policy explains how images should be used. Permission should be obtained from the Kostendt campaign to use the photo. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 04:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a publicity photo, and similar has been allowed by for previous interview articles. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Cleveland Scene same as Cleveland-Marshall College of Law? •–• 04:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. However, the same photo is available on the campaign web site. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The campaign website says it is sourced from the college of law, not from Cleveland Scene. The img credit needs to reflect that. •–•  05:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pardon, where? --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's on the campaign site, it seems like it's fair to say it's a publicity photo, but it still doesn't hurt to ask the candidate if it would be okay to use in press. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 05:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it wouldn't, but I wouldn't know the merit, particularly. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * here.  asking them is not of much use if they got it from the college, however, you can ask them to send a photo which they hold copyright to, to permission-commons@wikimedia.org (CCing you) -- which I can verify as a OTRS/VRT agent -- and we can have free media instead of fair use.•–•  05:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything published online is copyrighted, so if it's not clear that the photographer released the photo for use somewhere then it's not okay to use it. In the case of a "publicity" photo, the assumption is that this photos are specifically released for use by the media (Wikinews). An organization might put out a set of photos for the media to publish along with their story. An example is this Apple press release with photos specifically for use by the press. It comes with a license to use them, with notice in the ZIP folder stating you can use the photos if your "use is personal or editorial and non-commercial". —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 05:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And/or on their website which is clearly under press kit. •–• 05:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did you get law school at all??? --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * hover on his website, and see the alt image caption. •–• 05:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: file
1). It was INITIALLY pulled from the Cleveland Scene, hence why Mike contacted me. The photo used there is the same as on the campaign web site, I have updated the file description appropriately.  2). I have used photos not explicitly marked for-the-press before under the rationale of publicity photos/screenshots. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, what I will do is this, I will make a new file of a photo from his Twitter. Please delete the other one. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the photos may be the same: one in color the other in black and white. While it's likely okay to use these photos, the best practice would be to secure permission from the person depicted or the photographer —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 05:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it's necessary. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the person who owns the photo doesn't approve of the use there are potential legal ramifications for its unallowed use. Reporters should want to maintain a good relationship with the subjects of interviews and use their property respectfully. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 05:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

E-mail sent. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While it is important to have good relations, the "legal ramification" part is prevented by the fair use doctrine. And as I said -- if you can ask the candidate to send a photo they hold copyright to, to permission-commons@wikimedia.org, releasing it under a free license, that would be the best solution.  Though getting photos from the person's website when adhering to fair use practices, is not a problem under fair use. •–•  05:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've sent an e-mail asking for a publicity photo. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Reaching out
I contacted him through by e-mail found on his web site 4 May, 2021 along with many other candidates. He replied by e-mail at 5 May responding in the affirmative. I sent my questions in later that day; he submitted his questions 11 May. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wording
I'm not going to review....but the first paragraph has an odd wordiness to it.....the reader doesn't need to know the finer points of who/what/how the interview was done/gathered. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, Acagastya encouraged such a recollection, and it's present in a few other ORs to my knowledge. I would assume the staleness (referred to in a section on my talk page) would be disregarded in favour of a simple discussion with a candidate for an election due to take place in November. --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4622291 [Not ready]

 * I frankly see no reason why you would call it stale, Bddpaux. It really isn't stale -- if addition of one line like this would have fixed the problem, you could have asked the reporter here on talk to add it. •–•  01:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you review it, if you have the time? I have submitted it for further review after rectifying (I hope) 's concerns.  Merci! --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You know what? Instead of taking an argumentative stance, I will concede this: You may be right. The matter of freshness in terms of interviews has ALWAYS been a bit wishy-washy around these parts. So, let's try this: I will take a look at it since the author appears to've taken a small step to freshen things up a bit AND it appears to be a solid contribution to our project here. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4623303 [Passed]
Words cannot express my gratitude at finally having articles go through. Thank you, !!! --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * could you once forward the answers, not the questions, just to me (agastya@) instead of scoop for archival purpose? •–• 08:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ....or for that matter, even post them here on the talk page?? I had a brain glitch, and should've asked. --Bddpaux (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have forwarded the ANSWERS to scoop under the assumption such a decision would be more in line with the Wikinews policy of confirmation. Apologies for the mistake. --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks, . Though, it won't matter much if you sent to scoop -- because I was going to forward it to the alive scoop once received.  I am unsure about what we should do with pi's email access. •–•  17:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)