Template talk:Publicity

It would be pretty incredible that Wikinews would not make use of press releases. See, and then note its source. Publicity is for its stated purpose, the distribution of news, and in this case images. -Edbrown05 08:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A publicity Photo is a free photo. So I am reverting this template's warning tag. I don't even agree with the rest of the language found on the template. -Edbrown05 08:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Doldrums could explain why this page is locked? -Edbrown05 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Time to move from U.S. or British legal centric issues to... hmmm "publicity". -Edbrown05 09:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * publicity photos can be copyrighted and are not automatically released into the public domain (eg. ). we can use publicity images under limited circumstances, asserting fair use or license compliance, but doing so may mean we forgo on the "free content only" objective we have. the recent resolution tells us to find ways to limit such non-free use, so lets find a way to ensure that we do limit non-free use to places where it is particularly needed. copyright tags, their wording etc. are legal issues. if what you want to do is discuss how we shld use or not use or use in a limited way non-free content, the place to do it are the talk pages of WN:EDP or the discussion page for the action plan, not by changing copyright tags to what you would like the law to be. –Doldrums(talk) 09:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The place to do it is right here. And how could a publicity photo not be released into the public domain? That makes no sense. -Edbrown05 10:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have said this several times. This license, allows us to use these images in compliance with US Copyright laws. Not WMF laws. WMF is NOT above the law. We are a news reporting agency. It is impossible for us to use 100% free images 100% of the time. DragonFire1024 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with WikiMedia in my opinion, and everything to do with reporting what by media standards are allowable, now that there is a new kid on the block. -Edbrown05 10:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

responses:
 * Edbrown
 * how could a publicity photo not be released into the public domain? because the two are not the same. a publicity photo may be copyrighted and then released by an organisation (eg. ) for use under certain conditions ("newspapers and bona-fide science magazines and journals may use", "reference must be given to ESO", "Reproduction for all other purposes are subject to individual permission by ESO"). public domain means no-one can assert copyrights over the work. anybody can use it for whatever they want without anybody else's permission.
 * It has nothing to do with WikiMedia and everything to do with reporting what we do here has to comply with WMF policies. if you think those policies are incompatible with reporting, tell (us and) the WMF why, if u can't convince (us and) them, go do ur reporting elsewhere. so long as you stay here, follow the policy or help draft a change. ignore the policy is not an option.
 * DF
 * This license, allows us to use these images in compliance with US Copyright laws. we use the publicity tag to declare that the images are used either under a fair use claim (not a license) or in compliance with the conditions under which the photo was released. it is not enough to say "i use this under fair use claim". fair use claim must be substantiated. we must do our best to ensure that claim has some legal validity. the way to do that is to provide the information and rationale described in Fair use rationale guideline.
 * license compliance will typically mean that the image is not free for redistribution, modification etc. the board resolution has made it clear that such images shld be used in a limited way, and only when necessary. so again, some guidelines need to be drawn up telling us when it's ok to use such non-free images, and then each image can be checked if it meets those guidelines.


 * WMF is NOT above the law. Red herring. nobody is saying it is. but we need to follow the law as well as WMF policies. period.
 * It is impossible for us to use 100% free images 100% of the time. so draw up guidelines telling u when it's useful, important, necessary to use non-free images and follow them. don't use this as an argument to say all non-free image use is ok, because that is against WMF policy.

finally, if you want this kind of explanations, u'll do better to ask a question instead of telling other contributors 1. they're wrong. 2. they don't know how Wikinews works and you do 3. they don't have the best interests of Wikinews at heart and you do. –Doldrums(talk) 11:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The template is too long, too yellow, and too ugly.--Kádár Tamás 11:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but the wording is what is required by law. The color is standard. DragonFire1024 11:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And all that Kádár Tamás, which is why for it being reverted. Image policy is, ah, you probably already know. -Edbrown05 11:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not happening. Really it can't be. People are saying that you can use their content, and Wikinews is reticent about it. -Edbrown05 11:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats not exactly what is happening. What is happening is that people are saying you can use this, but only for news reporting, etc, and we (or at least somebody is) are feeling that that isn't good enough. Some publicity images are public domain, some have various restrictions. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WN:EDP discussion
How could a publicity photo be copyrighted? -Edbrown05 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC) If a photo is a copyright infringement, then don't blame Wikinews, blame the uploader. Can't believe I'm getting crud over this. -Edbrown05 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, publicity photos are usually copyrighted. However certain rights are offered when they are made available to the press and public.  Politicians and the like want to do this so you use a photo that shows their good side, and they want to give you the least rights they can.  If it wasn't for the negative publicity they'd all say you couldn't use their images to report bad news.
 * On the other hand, I've one major objection to what is called the "legal" version of this template - and that is that images should be labelled for deletion. Depreciated use I can understand, but I don't want policy to allow some well-meaning Commoner to come along and change the photo on our first article about Tony Blair to something 10 years after the article was written. We do news, when it is 10 days old it's history. If you think we should change that, go read some Orwell, the term you're looking for is Newspeak. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i share some of your concerns about replacing images. i think the deletion bit was introduced as a way of implementing the bit about the resolution about images of living persons. i have no problems with discussing or implementing changes on this template or to broader discussions about the scope and extent of the EDP, but i do have problems with people who have no idea what their change does, but insist it remain nonetheless. –Doldrums(talk) 10:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright remains on of the least-understood sets of laws by the public at large. I want a depreciated clause in our EDP - for all the existing licenses. So the map of Iran I listed on DR would be kept, just used on the article it currently sits on, and not used again if someone can make a replacement.
 * However, I have no idea how the template should be set up. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have no idea what a language change to this template would do. Does that mean it shouldn't be done? I think not. 'Fair use' is not a publicity photograph. From that scratch, I'm starting-Edbrown05 11:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is horrible to try and explain. Public domain means you can do anything you want with it.  There is no need to assert Fair Use.  Fair Use - in my limited understanding - is where an image is copyrighted, but available with some restrictions.  I'd be quite happy to have the template specify that the image should never be used without first doing a search for a free alternative that maybe wasn't available when the image we have was initially used. To be honest, the grief I've seen around here on this issue has made me wonder if I need a lawyer to help with one of my hobbies. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The more I try and figure these things out, the more I agree with the ideas of the pirate party. :) Fair use is when the photo is copyrighted, but the law allows us to ignore the copyrights on it in specific situations. I think the main problem here is we have different definitions as what constitutes a publicity photo. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Change the name
Publicity images are the kind of images of superstars like Image:Aishwarya Rai Cannes05.jpg, which are not linked to specific events, and I personally don't think we should use them. We should have some kind of Unique Event Press Release -template, for images like for example Image:Windows Vista demo.jpg. On the other hand we need more diverse fair use templates like for Posters, book covers, new products or inventions, ... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a publicity photograph Image:Michael Nutter.png. I'm left wondering why the image by Cspurrier, and mentioned above by Stevenfruitsmaak, hasn't been deleted: Image:Windows Vista demo.jpg (<-- that image isn't even sourced.) -Edbrown05 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's on Commons then it's ok. Slapped an image-source on the Vista image, could get deleted.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, individuals and organizations will rise to the occasion and say, hey, you can use this image to disseminate information. Like this image by DragonFire: Image:Amphipod crustacean.jpg. I'm going to post it to Commons, and by the time Commons comes around to deleting it (which it won't in my opinion), means that Wikinews then needs an alternative. -09:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not suitable for commons: it is indeed released for use in news stories, but not all rights have been released. We can claim fair use however.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it not suitable for Commons? -Edbrown05 09:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * its only released for the press. Its not released for random things. (Although they might be open to that if we emailed them) Bawolff ☺☻ 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)