User talk:SouthEastUS

Users who seek to complain without being willing or able to work toward a solution have no business here. It's unproductive and irresponsible. SouthEastUS 23:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Press Releases

 * "Once that press release or PSA is sent out, you cannot take it out of circulation, and you can't control its use. It has been publicly distributed, and it is probably public domain under the copyright law. Anyone who has it can use it for any purpose." (D.R. Yale and A.J. Carothers, The publicity handbook : the inside scoop from more than 100 journalists and PR pros on how to get great publicity coverage : in print, online, and on the air, Chicago, Ill.: NTC Business Books, 2001, p. 66.)


 * "Companies (and indeed organizations generally) produce many documents. Some of these are in the public domain, such as annual reports, mission statements, press releases, advertisements, and public relations material in printed form or on the World Wide Web." (A. Bryman, Social research methods, Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 376.)


 * "information that has always been in the public domain but was previously inaccessible to most people - because it was held in some special place, or released only to specialists. Press releases, for instance, once landed only on the desks of journalists. Now anybody can read press releases on a company's Web site." (F. Cairncross, The death of distance : how the communications revolution is changing our lives, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001, p. 80.)

You should be aware that press releases are copyrighted material. The only copyrighted material which may be posted to Wikinews are those which are freely licensed in a way compatible with the CC-by 2.5 licensure (which is what Wikinews articles are licensed as.) - Amgine / talk 05:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous, a press release is specifically released by virtue of it being a RELEASE. This is why embargos are put press releases, to make it clear when the document is released to the public.
 * SouthEastUS 05:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Journalists also write articles in newspapers, which are released. This does not change their copyright status. In most parts of the world it is not even possible to release all copyrights. Instead, copyrighted works are licensed in a variety of ways to make it possible for people to use them. Most press releases are flexibly licensed, but not in a way which makes them compatible with Wikinews. Still, Wikinews can host an article *based on* the press release, though it will undoubtedly also require additional sources (WalmartWatch is not considered an unbiased reliable source) to corroborate factual statements. - Amgine / talk 05:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll email creative commons and see what they say. SouthEastUS 05:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think Creative Commons will issue a legal opinion on whether a certain piece of text (with an obvious copyright statement) can be transferred to another site under another license. As I recall, Creative Commons doesn't issue a legal opinion on any point -- it's up to lawyers to do that. If you are passionate about this particular story, why not simply rewrite the article and add additional sources? --Chiacomo (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As a reply to your message on my talk page... IANAL, but some wikinews administrators and editors do have a reasonably or very good understanding of the licensing restrictions/requirements of material submitted to Wikinews. This case is pretty straightforward. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Look what I found: Talk:News release SouthEastUS 06:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A paper press release generally does not contain a copyright warning at the bottom.. I don't dispute that press releases are meant to be distributed and copied from. The problem is not with Wikinews, it is with the source from which you copied it. If the release is in fact in the public domain (which means it can be used by anyone for any purpose and in any way) or is licenesed in some other way that is not consistent with the source site license, it should be stated on the release. Else, we must assume that the everything appearing on the site is copyrighted and licensed as is stated in the disclaimers, etc. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers don't issue press releases, press releases are issued to newspapers. Press releases predate the licensing that would set your heart at ease, not to mention they are designed to be short and to the point. If it says "press release" at the top of the page, it does not need to say "release" at the bottom as well.

Please remove the copyright violation unless you can find some evidence that all press releases are not inherently public.

SouthEastUS 06:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you misunderstand me, I referred to a "paper press release" -- that is, a press release issued on a physical piece of paper. Before this "internet" thing (and yes, even today) press releases have been issued on sheets of paper with the word "Press Release" or "Media Release" at the top of the page. They generally also include a date on which the information is to be circulated and a media contact for additional questions. Press releases issued in physical form ("paper press releases") generally don't have a copyright statement at the top (or the bottom). I have no doubt that the source site for this article MEANT to release the information. They did not, however, release this information in a manner than can be copied verbatim into Wikinews. You can rewrite the article with the information contained in the press release (which is how even more traditional media reporters process press releases) -- please feel free to do that. As it stands, unless a site's license is compatible with CC-BY, no material from that site can be copied diretly to Wikinews. Period. More broadly, Wikinews discourages what is termed "copy and paste" stories from other sites (you'll sometimes see this abbeviated on Wikinews as "C&P", or "C&P copyvio"). If you read the link you provided above (to Wikipedia) more closely, you'll probably gain some insights into why Wikinews (even though we're licensed under CC-BY rather than GFDL) can't publish press releases directly. Again, I fail to see why, if you are passionate about this story, why you cannot simply rewrite it. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Look I totally agree that it is bad journalism to cut and paste a story. It would be much better if the story was re-written. I can't argue this. I made some changes to the release, but I did not completely rewrite it.

However, bad journalism is better than no journalism at all. Cut and paste news is better than no news. Others can add and rework the story once it is posted.

The release being posted on the website is irrelevant. It is still a release, and it still conforms to any standard of being open and public.

While it is not a good practice, is a common practice for traditional media reporters to publish press releases. It has been a common criticism of media coverage of the Iraq war that news outlets regularly published White House press releases verbatum.

Let me know if you find something that suggest otherwise.

SouthEastUS 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The release being posted to a website with a published statement dictating how the release can be used that is not compatible with CC-BY is relevant. There is nothing in the statement describing how press releases are different from any other content on the site... From the above linked page: "You may not modify any content on this Web site for any purpose, and you may not copy, download, store or distribute any content on this web site for any commercial purpose." Since content from Wikinews will be modified (that's a wiki) and CAN be used for commercial purposes (so long as the requirements of the CC-BY license are met), this content can not be copied directly to Wikinews. Please do not press this issue further. If you want to include information from this release (and Wal-Mart's on documents), please feel free to write a new article without copying content directly. --Chiacomo (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay you win. For what it's worth I didn't get the release off the website. I got it cc'd to me in it's release to the Raleigh News and Observer. I can assure you the email did not request any "used by permission."

SouthEastUS 07:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)