Wikinews talk:Image use policy/New Wikimedia resolution for image licensing

Subject of the discussion
This page is to discuss how we are going to follow foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy.

Some of the questions regarding this policy and its background are addressed in FAQ page.

Images requiring immediate actions
There are over 2000 images that will be deleted. Someone better start informing the authors to change the license or delete the images. DragonFire1024 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also a list of every image affected needs to be compiled. DragonFire1024 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a basic list of what's affected on my talk page+the current list of images without copyright tags+We'd have to manual sort through everything tagged publicity, and delete the living. less then 2000 images, but no small task. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Commons has it easy. It's basically been enforcing this since it's start.  Thunderhead  ►  20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This does not affect commons whatsoever. This really only applies to fair use. Fair use images are beyond commons:commons:project scope. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I misundeeratood policy. there's not 2000 images, there's still a lot, but way less then that. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Right now I think (depending on interpetation) about 80% of our images don't meet it (2000 out of 2500). However it might be much less if I misread it. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A few things I just want to make sure i read right: Bawolff ☺☻ 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An EDP only works for fair use, not specific permission
 * Every image using EDP's need a specific individual rational (which would suck for logo's as they're all be the same)
 * Does crown copyright meet the standard. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many Users upload images to Wikinews, but generally I would say that Wikinews is in much better shape than Wikipedia. I think I may have uploaded an image or two in the distant past (and gotten at least one deleted), but generally, if I can't find an image on Wikimedia/commons, I do not attach it to an article. I think if we stick to images at Commons we will be OK, when they delete them we'll just get a red X and not a copyright violation. My two cents, --SVTCobra 02:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything on commons is fine. (and ideally if we sticked with commons in the first place we wouldn't have this problem, but some images are neccesary that commons doesn't like). none of these images are copyvio's either. They are just not free and don't have a reasonable excuse for not being free. Wikinews is in worse shape then wikipedia, as we have way way less people to do this, and our policy is very very different then the thing that the foundation adopted, where wikipedia's is almost identical, just a little bit softer on what is acceptable fair use. For the record, I personally think this is a great policy, just bad that its retroactive. Of our images, I think that every image (with excepion to about 20) is either a wikimedia logo/other protected upload, should be on commons, or in violation.  Bawolff ☺☻ 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point about fewer admins to delete vs. Wikipedia - but they have un-godly amounts of stuff uploaded. I have noticed that one cannot freely link an image from wikipedia to wikinews. But do you really think that photos that Wikinews reporters took and uploaded are not free? --SVTCobra 03:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of images here are not free [entire point of local uploads was to enable us to have not free images], where as wikipedia has a mix of free and not free (fair use is not free. Free as in freedom not free of $$$€). The whole idea of commons is to provide a central place for images that can be linked to from any project. They didn't think about that at the begining one only en 'pedia exsisted, so they had a bunch of projects with different image repositories. Also different projects had different ideas of what was an acceptable image. So they decided to just create a common image repository from scratch with only free images rather then merge from wikipedia. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just hope that the Foundation doesn't shut off local uploads and force them all to commons.  Thunderhead  ►  05:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not happening anytime soon. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this site has been good job at policing agaist the upload of image content that has high commercial value, so the potential for a law suit for infringement of copyrights under Fair Use is low. I don't think this is anything to get excited about. -Edbrown05 05:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but i'm worried about the line that says every single fair use image has to have an individually written explanition about why this image is used instead of a free image [if i read that right]. also, note, its not a law suit their worried about, its the idea of being free. Allowing anyone to reuse this site for any purpose as long as they give credit where credit is due. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I caught that instruction creep, Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) images "are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale". Huh? now we got to explain explicitly what is implicitly understood... to wit: "We don't have any other image to go with this textual information." -Edbrown05 06:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some rationales may well become part of licensing templates, e.g. logos which are almost always permissible. Please don't panic. I'm happy to assist here but for time efficiency's sake I need to process any questions that there may be as a batch. So if you can come up with a bunch of questions about what this licensing policy means for WN, Kat and I can go through it.--Eloquence 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I'll start a list of questions that the community could edit on the discussion page.  Thunderhead  ►  07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We'll have a great number of headaches for people like the guys doing sports. Club logos are all copyright and under restrictive licenses to try and stop you using them unfavourably. If you check, they're going through a process of requesting permission for use in news - this policy would likely kill that.

What about stuff I've retrieved from PACER? That's the U.S. courts system and I've labelled them with crown copyright as we lack a specific one for them. I prefer to do local uploads as Commons is a tad daunting; they're so conservative about what can stay and how copyright should be cited.

What also puzzles me on the foundation page is that they cite Polish wikinews' policy as an EDP example. Isn't it based on ours? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Fair use is an EDP, it just doesn't have the part about having a fair use rationale in it. It had the part about forcing fair use away if its replaceable long before anyone else started doing that. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna tack this link onto the discussion as an illustration of why you might want to control derivatives. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have reason to believe that this image was published under a free license, a prerequisite for these modifications to be legal and do you further believe that a non-derivatives license would actually prevent people from making these modifications anyway? --+Deprifry+ 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't see problem with that. (I believe people should be allowed to do stupid things if they like). Plus, if they're doing that for satire, they can call fair use anyway so it doesn't matter what rights you reserve. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you, but I think this is what some of our contributors are concerned about. Making it clear that things like parody can't be stopped may go some way towards assuaging fears.  Remember, to most people Copyright is just some text in the front of a book, or on a CD sleeve.  In normal life it is transparent and fair use allows us to do all the things like lend a friend a CD or a book, make copies of CDs for playing in the car, or cite a passage from a book to illustrate a point.  My personal opinion is that the differences the Internet has made to people's interaction with copyrighted works is something that should be being taught in schools.  I also think life+70 is criminal and should be the sentence for Sonny Bono, not the term of copyright. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the problem. No license in the world is gonna prevent the bad guys™ from doing with a picture whatever evil they have in mind but a too-restrictive license could very well discourage people with good intentions. As for Sonny Bono, I believe god already handed him his sentence ;). --+Deprifry+ 13:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Abolish Fair Use!
Really. That'll be the simplest way of all. I can think of very few examples where a fair use image adds significantly to the article, much less be essential for it. Most of the time it's just stock portrait photos or corporate logos and everyone knows how the logo of Google looks like.

It says "the free news source", not "the mostly free news source", on top of every single one of our pages. Let's take the bold step of keeping that promise and ban the usage of fair use on Wikinews altogether. --+Deprifry+ 09:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty radical. :-) What about here?  --Brian McNeil / talk 10:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just one logo. Image:Stormont_Parliamentary_Building_01.JPG could be an appropriate substitute. I believe it also interesting to note that not a single one of our Featured articles includes a fair use image and except for the example you provided, all of the current candidates use only free images. So fair use images are clearly expendable when it comes to good reporting. --+Deprifry+ 10:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As we're a news source I often compare what we do with other news sources. here is another news source using a part of the Google logo instead of all of it. Corporate logos are often used in mainstream news, they instantly reinforce the who aspect of the story. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly other news sources do it, but other news sources don't strive to be free as we do. If you put the word "Google" in the headline, the "who aspect" of the story is also quite instantly reinforced. --+Deprifry+ 11:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the original plan &mdash; meta:talk:Wikinews. Somewhere along the lines (not sure quite when. I know it was after DV left) we enabled fair use uploads. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting distinction, that use of the trademarked name "google" is "OK" in an article and use of the trademarked logo is not. Hahaha. As for making the content here available for "any use" we can't do that. There are still many, many limits to what can be done with the content we generate. This is not true just of wikinews, but also of any project. But of wikinews it is perhaps more true, unless you want to give up most of the 'special protections' that go along with news reporting, not just 'fair use', but also 'public interest' protections from defamation actions, secrecy laws, trespass laws etc ... there's a whole raft of places where the argument "it's for news reporting" is a get-out-of-jail-free card .. the moment we relabel wikinews as "content which is re-useable for ANY purpose" those protections may come into question (I'm not a lawyer etc) .. and there is nothing to say that the fact that the author of an article we source is protected means we are subsequently protected when we use the information in that article. Hence, we would then have to junk all externally sourced material which would not be acceptable on wikipedia, ie anything which is contentious, ie most news. Hahahahaha. HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
 * Any thoughts? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaha . I am thinking perhaps wikinews should divorce itself from wikimedia foundation, because the aims are quite different. Else it will have to basically become more tame even than Fox or VOA. Hahahahahahaha.
 * Basically, I think we are "the NEWS source that you can write", not "the random modern art site that any one can create", ie our content is explicitly news, and to gain those many exemptions hinted at above, we must ensure any license relicenses this content only for use in reporting news, and other actions that are legal to do with news, eg archiving, use in historical analysis etc, and {virtually anything AS LONG AS the licensee takes full responsibility for analysing and undertaking any legal liability}. Note that already repeating slander is not a protection to being sued, ie if we quote a news article that slanders someone, we are still liable -- unless we can claim protection under news reporting/public interest etc. We need to be able to claim "it's for news reporting, and in the public interest" or we can't say a lot of the stuff that should be said. The license needs to reflect that, or we need to accept and publicly state the limits that make us different from "real news" because people shouldn't be led to think that "the news source you can write" is a decent news source, if it isn't. A major function of news media is to report on issues of contention. Without that, we are useless.
 * On the other hand, if wikimedia really is something more than wikipedia, then they should accept that the different projects have different licensing needs, and work hard to encompass those needs. We should not just rely on wikicommons images, if that's what this page is discussing .. i'm not really sure what has been proposed. Personally, I think the wikicommons should state that the images being held there are not really "published" per se, but rather a library whose legal context depends on where they are included in a project and that it is at that point that issues like "fair use", appropriateness,defamation are decided .. but I imagine a whole raft of lawyers being paid big bucks would have something to say in reply to me .. since that's more or less the premise people went about with at the start of the internet, and underlies technologies such as gnutella p2p etc .. they could perhaps do this if restricting access to only people who have an article edit window open, or people who are viewing an article where an image has been included, ie no free browse of wikicommons images ... as if! .. Free vs free. Huh. ? -- Hourscomes 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand trademarks in comment above. The use of the word google in article, is not in violation of their trademark, and they can't due anything about us using the word. When this project was started it had three major goals, be Free, be publicly editable, be neutral. That is the goals of the project. This board resolution is inline with that. This has NOTHING to do with only using wikimedia commons. All this is about is that we should be a Free (as defined by the freedom definition/whatever they call themselves now project.) We already had policies saying that any image with a free equivalent, must be used as oposed to the fair use one regardless of the quality. That policy has been in place since we got local uploads. before that we exclusivly relied on commons. This policy says in a nutshell, No non-free non-fair use images. Any fair use image that has an equivelent free image can not be used, and Any fair use image used has to be of a living person, [as its possible to get photo's of living people] and have a good reason for their use. This is to make it easier for people to reuse our content, as fair use doesn't work everywhere, non-commercial doesn't work for bussiness, no derivitives is against the spirit of editing and Freeness etc. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, hahaha, I remember now the funniest part .. lots of the highly paid lawyers did agree that the internet was a new concept and should work in the way I described .. and the opposed lawyers came to a compromise with each other .. which is that you can include (transclude) any content published on the net that is not protected by a password etc. And the funny part, is that wikimedia PREVENT us from transcluding offsite images .. AHAHAHAHAHAR .. probably they even claim this is to "protect against copyright vios" or "to help free speech" or something hilarious. Hahahahahahaha. . -- Hourscomes 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen some very disgusting vandalism. That's with image hotlinking turned off. Also hotlinking is generally considered impolite, and if someone managed to malicously place a link on wikipedia front page, it would become a very effective DDOS attack. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Point is that we may as well just get rid of copyrights all together. It is free because you can still redistribute the images...Who cares if you cannot change them. I only upload quality images to Wikinews. There is no need for them to be changed...and If I have to agree to let some competing news agency or some vandal somewhere or POV pushing idiot to edit my images and f**k them up then I would rather them not be published at all unless directly with a competing news source.


 * Lets be realistic, Jimbo and the foundation have no interest in Wikinews IMO and they could care less what our needs are. We are a news source and we provide news in ways no one else does. We are being forced to change our rules because of what some board says is wrong. Do they have to worry about what happens to their content? NO...but they do care about wikipedia...they fool around there all the time...When was the last edit Jimbo made that improved Wikinews? This is the foundation's way of saying screw you Wikinews. Screw all of you and your users straight to the begining of the internet. DragonFire1024 04:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Jimbo perhaps not, he has a few edits here, but nothing substantial. However Eloquence is on the board, He is the founder of wikinews. Perhaps not active recently, but nonetheless cares about this project quite a bit imo. I also feel mindspillage cares about this portion of wikimedia a fiar bit too. Anyways, So you upload good quality images. However you using that license, gets others to use similiar licenses. They might take some crappy picture, that an adjust colours button would do wonders for. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think wikimedia foundation will end up distributing very free content, but not a lot of it (not a lot of good qual stuff, anyway -- which is even worse, if there's lots of dross and no gems!). We live in a world of compromises. Laws already exist which force us to limit the free-as-is-software "freedom" of writings and images. Its pointless to try to set up infrastructure assuming those laws don't exist, that the only laws there are are copyright. Wikimedia Foundation is a copyright-obsessed body. There are a ton of other things which must be balanced, and seeking to optimise only one of these variables will lead to a diminished body which cannot stand. -- Hourscomes 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bawolff, You cannot blame me for the actions of other users. The have a choice to use whatever license they please and that choice comes from their heads not mine. If they use it more than other licenses then oh well...that's their choice. These images have nothing to do with what someone can edit on a Wiki. The edits, at least from my view, I am worried about OFF WIKI. Vandals will get reverted here and if anyone has something to improve an image, which in a case or two were from previous users, who asked permission then ok...I am good. But in the case of wikinews, IMO its not just articles that are considered history but images as well. Policy further states that articles are not a work in progress which mean once published, a minimum of a day, in terms of contents and updates, the article is not supposed to be edited beyond grammar, spelling and such. So what i don't want them changed...is that stopping anyone from using them where ever they want? DragonFire1024 06:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What i mean to say is its the precedent it sets. Some people upload badly cropped photos. Some photos have bad colour tone, etc. If they're all nd, you can't fix it. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, I'm not proposing we allow historic images to change. Just allow them to change if the case arises that they need to (like for a new article) Bawolff ☺☻ 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we need to propose this to the foundation...or do they not care what the journalists who technically run this thing think? I am pissed that it was decided without our knowledge and or say so...it goes against what a Wiki community is about. DragonFire1024 06:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note i'm still saying that nd is a bad idea, just that we should respect archive conventions for images as much as possible(which we don't need permission from board to do). Anyway, I have a feeling we're going to be discussing this resolution with someone from the board soon. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just say when and where... I will be thre. DragonFire1024 06:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What's EDP?
★ MESSED ROCKER ★  10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * EDP stands for Exemption Doctrine Policy'. It's our way of saying we know and allow some copyright material as we believe fair-use doctrine permits it.  I can see Deprifry's point that we could be radical, and everyone knows what the Google logo looks like.  However, if we have a Google story on one of the main page leads it instantly flags to people that we have a story about them.
 * One of the big issues is that an EDP for us would not be the same as an EDP for Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia they might have circumstances where they can claim fair use on a photo from a news source.  We can't as that is competition with the other news source.
 * Personally... If we don't assert some sort of fair use rights then we might as well disable upload to the wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * More anacronyms. Hehe. cf: KISS == Keep It Simple, Stupid; WP:CREEP == Avoid instruction creep; MCR == Minimum Creep Rate; CREEP == Committee for the Reelection of The President .. hehehe. So this is Acronym Creep. See also WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. More food for the rule trolls. -- Hourscomes 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Instruction creep does suck. But its not that more then was already in place, just stricter. We already had a very instruction creepy policy. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikinews should not slam the door shut on local image uploads. It is the only opening that allows this project the wiggle room needed for images that support project specific reporting wants. Eloquence played a large part in creating the local upload capability. Wikinews sort of shot down Commoners who asked for accreditation here. I'm still not sure why the community did that other than they were afraid to let them write. Maybe Commoners didn't want to write, so what, all I want (maybe) is a picture of a kid riding heely shoes, something an acreditted Commoner might do very well while Wikinews works at the reporting aspect. -Edbrown05 06:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikinews should accredit photographers here. Commons is too (is saying it's a Kodak moment too strong?) -Edbrown05 06:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, not all of them were shot down. I think the main reason was that it seems kind of not nice to just waltz into wikinews, without even taking the time to have the pretense of participating, and ask for the general community to say that they trust you, and belive you wouldn't do something stupid. I personally think that is asking a little much (just my personal opinion). Perhaps that's not logical as their record at commons indicates they won't do stupid stuff, and they could benifit wikinews, but still. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, cross over candidates require an examination that goes over to where they came from. -Edbrown05 06:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the Commoners seeking accreditation was problematic, mainly because they weren't contributing here and thus unaware what we need pictures for, or how our policies and license differ. ASelman was - if I recall correctly - accredited and did some photojournalism articles.  Why couldn't the Commoners do at least one to show they know how to format a report?  Cover the town fair or some other local news, as Bawolff says - make some effort to contribute.
 * Of course, part of the problem is hostility towards Commons because they've caused us quite a few headaches in the past. Their approach of trying to get better images and replacing originals conflicts with our archiving goals.
 * The only place I suspect people could come from and get a good chance of passing accreditation is Wikipedia's In The News or the Signpost. Wikipedia's no original research clause would force them to work here and use us as a source for Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the wikinews vs commons conflict is still a major problem. The fact of the matter is that commons is no longer like that. but its hard to shake a bad reputation. Just look how many people wrote here that its the evil commerners for something that doesn't affects commons, and commons has more or less no intreast in. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What about press release images?
Could I claim fair use for e.g. Image:Tongeren025.jpg in Project brings dialogue between society and prisoners, as it illustrates the event and cannot be replaced by a free one since the event has passed?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, if there has been a reasonable search for free images. The new policy narrows it down a little bit, so i'm not 100% sure. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If the new rule made us more certain more often, that might be a counter to any hazards it introduces. -- Hourscomes 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My Images
I have several OR Images on WN...in fact LOTS and LOTS. Bawolff informed me that they will be deleted...1) What images? 2) Why?. I am not a very big commons fan mainly because they delete stuff at will and sometimes with no justification. If I have to, I will take all the images I took, changes the licenses to STOP them from going to commons if necessary. That means if I have to, then i can do them as or whatever. Well I donno...just tell me what images are now at risk I suppose. DragonFire1024 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since your images are, please correct me if I'm wrong, almost exclusivly free images, they are not affected by this new foundation policy. There is just a general notion that free images should be uploaded to the Commons, but that is not the subject of this discussion --+Deprifry+ 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon closer look I noticed that at the least the recent ones are not free, so they are on the contrary indeed in limbo. --+Deprifry+ 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What images? I have so many, I need links to them. :) DragonFire1024 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All those that are licensed under the CC-BY-ND-2.5. --+Deprifry+ 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we lose the ability to use CC-BY-ND-2.5 we're taking away most of the incentive to take photos for wikinews at all. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, why? --+Deprifry+ 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe people are entitled to ask for credit for taking a photo and restrict it to prevent derivatives. Its human nature to want credit, and dropping this license would be like asking people to give up getting credited for their work. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I know I don't want MOST of mine messed with, changed to fit a POV, changed to show false information, and if I wrtie a story that is so exclusive, I want News Agencies to def. attribute them to Wikinews. This is rediculous. We have the rightr to post whatever we want here under OR and if I want my images here as opposed to commons, then that is my decision. Not anyone elses as long as I use the right licenses. If ANY of my images are deleted, then I will not be able to retrieve 90% of them as they are on a computer no longer operatable. I will also be very upset and will have to either talk to Jimbo or something. I think Commons is just jealous. DragonFire1024 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are countless free licenses, including the one this site uses, that guarantee that an author is properly credited for his work. Again, the notion that free images should be uploaded to the Commons instead of Wikinews is an entirely different matter and not related to the new Foundation licensing policy. --+Deprifry+ 18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No deverse is the best...and guarentees the license. If that license is not allowed on WN, then remove it. Again its my decision and the decision of the author where they want their images or the images they too as well as the license that they want to provide. It is their RIGHT. Tio tell them they cannot post here because of a license is not right, especially if we allow the license to be used on WN when uploading. DragonFire1024 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) The board resolution does not deny you attribution. Almost all free content licenses require attribution.
 * (2) The wikinews community has already voted to deny you personal attribution, which is possible because Wikinews uses CC-By-2.5:
 * "If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties;"—CC-By-2.5
 * Notice the words "terms of service" in the license then note that Wikinews contribution pages say "Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to "Wikinews"."
 * Finally, if you are so worried that someone will alter your work, why did you submit it to a wiki? --Gmaxwell 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Images may have personal attrbutation. General text doesn't. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been agreed by a large part of the Wikimedia community that licenses disallowing derivatives is a damnable device because it is a restriction, and restriction is antithetical to freedom. I highly suggest you relicense your images to save your face (and your images). Seriously, it's not that bad because if you choose CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (which are allowed), they will still have to attribute the image to you so they can see the true image. ★ MESSED ROCKER ★  19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These are true images...uncropped and untouched...and no one has the right to make those changes, not that they follow the license anyways. They are freedom. They can be posted ANYWHERE as long as they are attributed. I don't see what the problem is...If it comes to it then I will just delete all my images to save the foundation all the trouble. The ones NOT on commons I do not want there. The ones with no diverse I want to keep that license. I will not change them because someone thinks they are not "free", which they are as long as attribution is made. To me this is considered a threat to journalism and the photos of users who have the proper licenses. DragonFire1024 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not my definitiopn of free. I personally very strongly oppose nc and nd licenses, and feel they are absolutly horrible. However I feel that any image in any article that complied with the policies of that time, should stay (assuming the images are legal, which they all are). Say you uploaded an image with red eye (or some similiar problem) Would you oppose someone correcting the red eye? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pedantism begets pedantism: they can correct the red-eye, and notify the author, who may decide to accept the corrected image, relicense/attribute, or repeat the correction themselves, depending on the amount of alteration different copyright bs comes in effect, but for red-eye, the author can just make the change themselves and re-upload.-- Hourscomes 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Something I would agree to. That is more than reasonable and I have on my user page enough ways to get ahold of me. DragonFire1024 06:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well what if its 70 years later, and you're dead, what then? (plus most users are hard to contact)Bawolff ☺☻ 06:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If Wikinews is around by then, then we should be WNN and what would my content be needed for? DragonFire1024 06:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Say WNN is doing a thing on what happened 70 years ago, and wants to crop an image you took of the proposed site of the buffalo hotel (like Image:000 0310.JPG) and they want to crop it to fit on the screen better, but can't because its nd. Okay that's a little far fetched, but especially if a lot of people upload nd photos, the possibility of somethign like that happening gets quite high. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FOr one any journalist would see the importance of the 3 visible signs in the image and would know the importance of any of the images related to that event...if its that important in 70 years then all the info is here...with infoboxes, archives, in my Name Space, etc... DragonFire1024 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't indent anymore so excuse me... I suppose all of us should have an appreciation of the fact that Dragonfire's image uploads are so perfect that there should never be a need to alter them for use in subsequent context. That is arrogant. -Edbrown05 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ther is a trail left by the reuse of content, for instance, see my faux pas (maybe I spelled that wrong), on this image from NASA. It goes back to its source. What more do you want? -Edbrown05 07:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what would satisfy DragonFire1024 is the ability to restrict derivatives. If it were possible to license so that derivatives could only be loaded to the wiki that would probably suffice. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it could be this wiki only, yes thats good. DragonFire1024 11:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe all free content should be uploaded on Commons, and will delete any free content here after it is moved to Commons. It's incredibely frustrating when you're on different projects to see that you can't use an image because it has been locally uploaded... It's a lot easier to do interwiki work if everyone should just upload to Commons. And I'm sure if the images are perfect, no one will feel the need to adjust them, and if they to they will look like a fool, so what's the problem?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read my issues above. DragonFire1024 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like Eloquence to take a look at this link from the United States Copyright office Rights of Attribution and Integrity. Alos anyone else interested in their rights.

(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —
 * Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right. DragonFire1024 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Who agreed to this?
Did anyone vote on this? If so where? and who? This is a policy that users have to agree with and vote on. Any action taken to enforce a policy that is not voted on by the community is bad...If that is the case, then this is not a Wiki or one that is based on its users. DragonFire1024 19:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This was a resolution by the Board of Trustees.  Thunderhead  ►  19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whose idea was it? DragonFire1024 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree totally. I think all users from all Wikimedia Foundation projects should have voted on this policy. Only 7 people agreed with this policy. What kind of consensus is that?? — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to chill out a bit on this, the warning I've seen on images says we have a year. That being the case we don't need to fight amongst ourselves.  However there are images uploaded by people who have left the project.  Where we have email addresses for these people we can draw up a form letter and ask them to change the license.  I honestly wonder why we should have to do that, and there's time for us to get an explanation of what the trustees were thinking when they drew this up. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anybody subscribe to Foundation-l? Perhaps someone posted a reason on that list?  Thunderhead  ►  19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I belive messedRocker does (He posts there a lot it seems from what I notice. But this was in a lot of places, not only foundation-l)
 * explanation? I doubt we will and I think it will be that commons is jealous. DragonFire1024 20:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been a long time in the running, First off the borad is 7 members big. 7 votes is unamoimous. The reason for this, is the goals of the foundatuion, and by extention wikinews is to create Free resources (Mission statement Mission Statement. free as in Free software/freedom/etc not free as in free of charge or free use but not modification. This plan was advertised on wikizine, signpost, template:wn news and a bunch of other places (although I didn't realize fully exactly what it was.). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the Board realized that there would be a lot of problems on the several hundred projects the Foundation operates. In fact, they say that they'll help out in the resolution.  Thunderhead  ►  05:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they are definitly willing to help out. There is some talk about setting up a Q and A irc meeting with some members of the board to answer the questions about this, as this is a bit of a heated debate. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit? We already lost 1 contributer.... DragonFire1024 06:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's what the trustees were thinking when they drew that up... please do read it; I'll probably make a few of the same points elsewhere on the page. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples

 * Image:ADF in Afghanistan 2002.jpg, tagged with PGOL - Grant of License.
 * I don't see any problem with this one.
 * However I have a problem with the policy if I couldn't take one of the other pictures from that site today and use it in the same way. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Blackheath fire.jpg, tagged NON-COM - Non Commercial use.
 * Again I think this one should stay.
 * And I also believe we should be able to continue using material from that particular source. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:London snow 08 02 07.jpg, an attempt to use CC-NC when taking something from flickr.
 * This one, I don't know. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't we simply create an EDP that "permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status."? On the one hand we are writing free news, but when it comes to images, we should do our best to have the most free image possible, but when it's not possible can't we just use the next best things, such as available non-commercials, no-derivates, ...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * we did. this resolution more or less says we can't. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What it means
Can somebody help me here and just write simply and plainly what it means with no other comments or opinions 'cause theres a hell of a lot of stuff above that is mainly opinion and i still have no clue about what it means to us. Would really appricaite it, thanks --Mark Talk 09:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it means we may have to delete some images and we need to tidy up which licenses we allow. The fact that the policy is to be applied retroactively is why it is generating so much heat.
 * What it means for you now is you have to explain why you use a non-free image instead of a free one. Basically, you'd probably be saying "No free substitute available" or something like that and hoping you get the licensing correct.  This requires clarification on the image upload page so people can get help doing things correctly. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right thanks for that. If you need help with this for slogging through things then give me a shout, even if i don't understand (or like it really) i'll still help out.  --Mark Talk 10:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My Reccomendation
IMHO, the policies, tags and many other simolar things are BEYOND REPAIR, start a fresh, create new tags and policies instead op putting all the resources into trying to salvage old plans and ideas. For old images, slowly update them but stop the flow of problems at the least! —Symode09 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So as in or  or  ?  --  Zanimum 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're that bad. the main problems are tags with the nd, nc string in it or gol, which is totally at odds with the resolution. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No direct upload?
So, can we simply not have any upload links in the navigation, except for one instantly redirecting to Commons? Because ultimately, we shouldn't upload another picture to the Wikinews site ever again. -- Zanimum 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is exactly what Commons doesn't want us to know. If they wanted to make a good sulution, they would have said all free images go on Commons but we will not request fair use to be removed from Wikinews. We also should not delete any images that were uploaded before this new and improved anoying policy came in place on March 23, 2007. This is NOT fair. If they decide to be mean then all of the images on Wikinews that were uploaded before this new policy came in place will have to be deleted. Lets just FREAKING delete our whole upload page to MAKE COMMONS, THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, AND THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THIS HAPPY!!!!! — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you stop screaming, please? --+Deprifry+ 21:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thats nice in theory (no local uploads) we need to use fair use sometimes, otherwise we would not have gotten uploads on in the first place. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Could you stop screaming, please? --+Deprifry+ 21:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)"


 * Please respect our civility policy and I have a right to yell if I chose to otherwise comment censoring would be allowed. Thank you. — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) I live in a free country called Canada! (2) If Commons thinks they can use the use FREE for the new image policy to the extent of being totally FREE, then I can be FREE to yell if I want to. — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Wikinews, the FREE FREE AND MORE FREE THAT COMMONS FELT THAT THEY SHOULD PROPOSE A NEW IMAGE POLICY PROPOSING TO ONLY USE FREE FREE AND MORE FREE IMAGES!!!!! news source you can write!
 * No comment.  Thunderhead  ►  22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also not further commenting on your usage of capitalized letters since I believe by now any reasonable person will have drawn the same conclusion as I have but I will state, for the third time now, that this new policy has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with the question whether free images should be uploaded to the local projects, in this case Wikinews, or to the Commons. I will also say, and you might know this from reading the resolution, that this policy was not enacted by the Commons community but by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. --+Deprifry+ 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to humbly recommend you don't SCREAM. it pisses people off, and this is an already tense page. Also the word free has many different conotations depending on context. Stating canada's a free country doesn't seem relative in this context. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not happy with the Wikimedia Foundation for making this decision and I'm sure many people arn't and are too. I regret my comment and I will try to not yell like I did before. — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Free? If they want to make everything "free" as they call it, then this is a battle for COMMONS. And they won. Commons wants to have more photos than anyone in the world and IMO, (speaking from experience) will do whatever it takes to do that. We have content they do not which IMO would cause someone(s) to whine. Our issues with commons has been far and wide and everyone has had their share. This is so about commons whether the new policy says so or not. Why would they not have a part in this new policy implication? I still want to know whose Idea this was and who decided to take it to the board. As a user, writer, editor, community Admin., photographer, journalist, and active voter in the community and etc...I have the privilage and the right to know. further more this is a community that has the right to vote on issues pertaining to Wikinews. This issue pertains not just to wikinews but all other Wiki's, but nonetheless, it is still a new policy that in every other case would have to be approved by the community. IMO they are taking what a wiki really is, away from us. DragonFire1024 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the Foundation has indeed made a bad choice in implimenting this policy without disucssing it with the community. I'm glad that the Foundation instigated a foundation-wide policy on images, but the Board should have definintly consulted with the community before making such a big change. Nevertheless, I respect the authority of the Board and the Foundation, and as a dedicated community member and administrator, I'll keep with thier policies. I think that we could have resolved a lot of the issues if the Board discussed this more openly, however.  Thunderhead  ►  03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I supported the Board and their efforts, until now. I thought they stood for more and I thought they cared about Wikinews. I guess I may be wrong. Their only interest is by far Wikipedia and probably Commons. If a policy hurts us why should they care? WP is one of the top ten most visited sites on the entire internet. If the foundation has no interest in Wikinews or the admins who try to keep things cool and calm, or respect the work that the journalists on this site does, it will be hard for me to continue contributing. And so why should they then keep Wikinews around? Do we ever get any of the money, to use for the project when they have fund raisers? If I cannot trust the board, which is supposed to protect our interests, and make us better than we are (which we can be), then who can I trust? DragonFire1024 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got to remember, Eloquence started this project, and he supported the new policy. Also, Kat Walsh, an active Wikinewsie and administrator (another elected Board Member) is on the Board. She supported as well. The Board has pretty much flat-out said that they're going to maintain the stability of the projects. This is indeed a big shakeup for the projects, and we've got a year to get it resolved. Until then, we can just diplomatically solve the problem by talking to the Board, and getting thier side of the story.  Thunderhead  ►  04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also have an issue with those Wikinewsies. Why did they not come to use first? Why did they overstep the rules and regulations of Wikinews? They are not above the rest of us, board member or not. As any other user, writer, etc, they are required to follow those rules and those polices. IMO is clearly a violation of our ethics and way of working on Wikinews...now that you mentioned them, (which I forgot about), I am eve more furious than I was before. DragonFire1024 04:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have made you furious. Discussion about new and proposed policies takes place here, on a private wiki. The Board discusses new policies thoroughly before making them public. The reason for the Internal wiki is to allow for a peaceful climate for members of the Board to discuss the repricussions of new resolutions and policies across the Foundation without hearing disputes from users. Which policies of Wikinews were they violating?  Thunderhead  ►  04:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well last time I checked its up to the community to say what is and isn't policy...this is like the cabal. A private Wiki? Thats an oxy-moron (or whatever) Wikis are not supposed to be private...Gee what other secrets do they pull on us? I am begining to wonder what I got myself into. DragonFire1024 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy on a local community is indeed decided by the community. Policy for the Foundation is decided by members of the Board of Trustees. There are several other internal wikis the Foundation operates, specifically for members of the specified committiees. You can view them all on the bottom of Special:SiteMatrix.  Thunderhead  ►  05:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And why was no consideration given to the copyright holders of the images? Why did they do this license to begin with? I mean honestly, this seems to me it was done to Wikinews in a manner that they just don't care about us. Honestly, The board was not acting in our best interestes, nor were the 2 Wikinewsies who are on the board. DragonFire1024 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean why was nd licenses allowed in the first place, it more or less was a side affect of allowing images exclusivly for wikinews. The majority of people hate and think nc/nd licenses are evil (imho from what I've observed). Bawolff ☺☻ 20:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There you said it...exclusive to wikinews Thats what I want my images to be. I uploaded and took them for specific Wikinews articles that are exclusive to Wikinews. If I wanted my images somewhere else I would have put them there. This is my choice...not the foundations. DragonFire1024 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire goal of wikinews is to make good news, neutral news, and news not exclusive to wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a little tense in here. The reasons for the resolution are articulated here (linked elsewhere on the page, but it's a big page).

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to provide for the creation and distribution of free-content educational materials. And anytime we let in non-free content, we deviate from our mission. In some cases there really is no replacement, which is why "fair use" is allowed at all. But that's a pretty narrow set of cases, and that's discouraged, too.

Since this is a matter of Wikimedia-wide policy and not just any one project, it was decided by the board; we'd seen several projects that had started slipping away from the free content goals of the Foundation and wanted to make a clear statement of what they were, before they slipped even further away from them. I am sorry to see that many Wikinewsies are upset by this and that they believe it is against their interests. But as a Wikimedia project, Wikinews is bound by the policies and goals of the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole, and the board of Wikimedia has chosen this path to follow for all projects for the reasons stated in the message linked above. I would like to see Wikinews thrive, and in general projects get a large degree of autnomy in deciding their own policies. But the free content mission is a fundamental reason for Wikimedia to exist, and so this policy is one that comes from Foundation level. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we may as well abolish the OR template and Exclusive Interview template allong with the required attribution. If an article is not exclusive to WN then why require attribution? DragonFire1024 05:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple, the board f**ked up...they mislead the journalists and then they went behind our backs...well the 2 Wikinewsies on the board did. Then they tell us, give us an ultimatum, change license or delete... nice board we have. (not) DragonFire1024 05:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikinews Bill of rights
users have claimed the following rights, in comments above.


 * 1) "the rightr to post whatever we want here under OR"
 * 2) "right to yell if I chose to"
 * 3) "the right to know"..."whose Idea this was and who decided to take it to the board"
 * 4) "the right to vote on issues pertaining to Wikinews"

i would suggest that we all come back to planet Earth. –Doldrums(talk) 04:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not have the right to post whatever we want. Yelling is incivil, and FWN apologized for it. The last two are Internal issues. While the community shouldn't be allowed to vote, we do participate in active discussion with the Board, and we should directly speak with members of the Board to resolve conflicts like this.  Thunderhead  ►  04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. We do vote...we vote for AbCom. we vote for Admins, for credentials, for policies, etc...DragonFire1024 04:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I meant vote on the Corporate issues. Since this involves copyright, I feel it is a Corporate issue.  Thunderhead  ►  04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Planet earth? What do you call them then? Why not just abolish our policies too...they are established to give users right and such on This wiki. DragonFire1024 04:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately there are decisions made by control groups because of legal requirements and these decisions are not and can not be subject to debate. Wiki this, that and so on... Complaining is useless. It just has to be done.


 * Not in this case...not in this case. DragonFire1024 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is simply a Wikimedia Foundation resolution. The UN also makes resolutions, lots of them. The Foundation-1(Piper mail) discussion thread gives a little on what this is all about. -Edbrown05 05:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And, I'm really ashamed to report that in my neck of the woods, which consists of 280 people that share my Internet connecetivity with the service provider Comcast, I was told by a customer service representative that half of us who share that connectivity lost it shortly after I made the aforementioned post. The service representative said it might be because of construction... someone digging in the ground... not likely when local time was 3 am when it occurred. Wikimedia needs to realize it is dealing with Wikinews. -76.104.104.187 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sign: Edbrown05

and now the Eloquence essay disappears... ... all this talk about free, be it


 * What do you mean? The killed your ISP connection? Whats going on? A conspiracy? They will have to take me down as well. I will not go without a fight. DragonFire1024 09:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The closing paragraph of the Eloquence essay read: "There is, however, one important truth connected to this argument: hostility hurts us all. When ideology becomes dogma, and when movements become factions, important (essential!) common causes are all too easily set aside. Therefore, the discussion about issues such as this must always be pursued in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. Those who poison this atmosphere with anger and irrational animosity must not be permitted to lead, regardless of how virtuous they may appear."
 * So, yeah to answer your question DragonFire, I do absolutely believe my internet connectivity was taken down. That is ... don't know if I can find the words other than to say it is not the first time
 * Assuming that this be true, dare I say Neutralizer was right? I wonder what he might think of this? And you are right...We are Wikinews and they do need to deal with us, not just 2. DragonFire1024 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not start seeing conspiracies!. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out elsewhere many of us helped vote Eloquence onto the Board. I suggest reading Kat Walsh's message to the mailing list, the essay by Eloquence is not gone it has moved to here.  Regrettably the focus is on Wikipedia and on educational value that content has.


 * For the most part this page has generated more heat than light, and I think its time for some to draw in their horns and realise the points have been made and heard. We've a year to deal with this.  We do need to organise our media library better, and we will probably lose some stuff from it.
 * For the moment I think the focus should be on the FAQ Doldrums has started on this page. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then for the moment, I request that none of my images be deleted until I am notified and until we talk to the foundation. If my personal images get deleted on the spot, then I will be very upset to say the least. DragonFire1024 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Which can be explained by stupidity!" LOL, So why is it so stupid? But I jest. And I am Kidding (not). I am sincere, hmmm, a hack to shut down wikimedia for a half hour. -Edbrown05 09:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * f**kers shut me down and I have extreme prejudice about that. Poison penned opinions shapers who think their opinion wields all, not, and then f**k with dissenting views. And I didn't even dissent, only leave open the possibility that a opnion (okay, I'll say it sucks) may oppose the premise. So, that makes me blockable W lower case -o- W. -Edbrown05 10:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, I don't believe the foundation has the ability to single you - or your subscription area - and block them from the wiki. Stupidity could be a f**ked up router configuration that kept you from seeing part of the net.  It happens, it always gets blamed on a third party because your ISP never wants to admit their infrastructure is fallible.  In fact, a screwed router could impact you while leaving anyone not on the same ISP able to see the wiki, it need not even be your ISP's it might be upstream. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? What did I miss?  Thunderhead  ►  10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically Ed's isp made a boo-boo and he thinks the cabal's after him. (I think anyways). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

FA Rhetorical Qs

 * Why can't we all just get along?
 * The Children! Won't somebody think of the Children!
 * I tried that once, and I was denied protecting the children from porn... DragonFire1024 09:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Glad to see you still know how to crack a joke. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * lol. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Publicity photos
Could we allow images that are intended to be used in media campaigns? Like press release images, for example Image:Tongeren025.jpg (see the fair use rationale)? The images are still copyrighted, but released for use in any news report, without restrictions. So the only restriction is that they can be used in news reports, and we expect that our reports that are reused are reused as news reports... So could we label some images Press Release instead of publicity, and get rid of images like Image:Daniel Craig.jpg, which are not linked to a specific event and can be replaced by a free alternative? I know it probably won't work, but it kinda sucks that you can't use images given to the media on a press conference. Anyone can use our news, just not our images for things other than news.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So basiclly a newsreporting only thing. I think that falls under publicity. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I want to say is that there is a difference between (a) images of living people that have been released to be used in the press in the event that those people are ever mentioned in the papers, like Image:Aishwarya Rai Cannes05.jpg, and (b) images of a unique event that took place and the organisation released images of, for example it could be images of a base jump after it secretely took place.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rationales for non-free photos
we have to come up with a set of rationales for using a non-free image or other media in a news article. i expect the rationales will have to meet the following tests –Doldrums(talk) 10:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the rationales will ensure that only a "minimal" amount of non-free material is used.
 * 2) the material is necessary or adds significant value to the article it accompanies.
 * 3) free alternatives are unavailable and are unlikely to be available.


 * May I suggest: free alternatives are unavailable and are unlikely to be ever becoming available? Also, the second criterion is quite vague... I'd say that it also has to be an image of the event discussed, not of something related to it. For example you could have a fair use-image of the CNN "Where's Obama?" report on the relevant article, but not on an article discussing the show in which it occured?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On ND & NC photoessays


I said when this first started that these would have to be deleted or relicensed eventually. Unfortunately, we seem to have gotten more of them. That very fact illustrates something about permitting non-free licenses: their use tends to propagate. However, Wikimedia projects are not about giving authors choices how to license their materials. If you, as a photographer or author, have been led to believe that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to give you a choice what to do with your content, you have been misled. We do not. The WMF provides resources free of charge and free of advertising which allow everyone to contribute knowledge, but only if contributors give others the Four Freedoms. We do not strive to multiply and diversify the number of licensing choices, but to multiply and diversify knowledge itself. This is best achieved by granting freedoms, not by taking them away.

ND (without the NC restriction) is among the least popular CC licenses, and its use is generally the result of a legal misunderstanding. You already have legal and social recourse if people use your work to libel you; this is completely separate from copyright law. Furthermore, CC-BY-SA (or another copyleft license) protects your work from non-free derivatives. I see no compelling reason why we should continue to allow these licenses. They take one of the most important freedoms away without cause.

Any change in licensing policy is going to be disruptive to those whose uploads are affected. The WMF is at fault for not communicating its founding principles sooner and with more clarity. I have tried to give this issue priority once I joined the Board, and Kat has also given it a strong push. The licensing policy you see is the result of that. It was not drafted by some outside body that has no connection to this community. I hope we will together embrace it and the freedoms that it represents. Once again: It is not about giving you choices. It does in fact take away from the power of the individual, to build a commons accessible to all.--Eloquence 04:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said, but is their any chance of this not being a retroactive resolution. I'm all for this, but, as you know already, a done story is done. If the old policy was allowed for only images included in old articles, are the evil and badness would almost instantly disappear, as unlike wikipedia, an image is not likely to be used in new articles. We're time oriented. we can almost instantly phase out licenses well still allowing the old hard work that went in to previous images to stay. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * After a brief chat, and a bit of thought, I've changed my mind on this. Down with the non-freeness. I am fully prepared to participate in the mass relicense email campaign. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading this I see that the board had no interest whatsoever in what we as a a community think or what the authors think and have no true interest in Wikinews. If they mislead us as Eloquence put it, then it was intentional IMO. If they were not to allowed my content or any other author's content to be eclusive to Wikinews, then they should not have allowed it in the first place. I don't know Eloquence well, but from the time I joined up and until now, has made very little contributions to Wikinews as a writer etc or to the community, and overstepped the bounds of the community when the 2 wikinewsies went behind our backs ands without or knowledge to create a policy that affects journalists of this site. That goes against the general standings of Wikinews, when we are supposed to vote on policies that affect wikinews directly. To have a private Wiki, with access granted only on a wehat seems to me, a "need to know basis" goes against the very idea of a "free" Wiki. Thats not free. What will you do about that? My images are free and anyone anywhere can upload them to whatever the hell they want to with attribution. If they have to "delete" my images because of "no dirivitives"(or whatever) cuz it means thats not free, then so be it. If forced to, which I am being forced, given this is a free wiki, then fine, I will take my content elsewhere...not just the images, all of it. Sorry if I don'twant someone messing up my original photo journalism. DragonFire1024 04:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel this way. See my comment further up the page for why I disagree with you. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read it...see mine in reply to it. DragonFire1024 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the reason you do not want to grant others the right to create derivatives from the photos you uploaded, DragonFire1024?--Eloquence 06:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I uploaded only images that need no cropping, editing, scribbling, spray painted, etc. If they need it that badly, i will delete them or relicense those particular ones. I don't want some idiot destroying work that i worked hard to get and do. If they need to do that much work it would be easier to get their own pictures of the people/places/things. DragonFire1024 06:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How would changes which you do not approve of hurt you? What form the images take here on Wikinews is up for the community to figure out, as with all content.--Eloquence 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression regardless of the license, you still could have the right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation (From Moral rights. ). Bawolff ☺☻ 06:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. And I prevent any of those things...defined as said. DragonFire1024 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * DF, if your worry is over egregious misuse of your images, then u probably shldn't upload them on any publicly accessible website. i think someone's pointed out earlier that in practical terms, u upload an image on the web, u can kiss ur rights goodbye. pretty much the only people hurt by an ND license are those who have some intent to respect copyrights - the more legitimate publishers.


 * to give u a hypothetical example, what if someone wanted to publish Wikinews newsletters, has the willingness to crop images to get the layout right, but is stopped by the effort involved in e-mailing every wikinews image contributor for permission for creating a derivative work?


 * u're willing to license ur considerable writing under CC terms, there's nothing to stop someone from mangling reports u write to fit his pov and republishing. why crib so much about photos of cherry blossoms and 24-hour cafes in Buffalo? –Doldrums(talk) 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * if what pisses u off is that u feel u've not been consulted, then let's see whether that is already the case and how much of an opportunity u now have to determine the outcome of this resolution. my understanding is that there is still leeway available in how we implement this policy.


 * btw, is an "amnesty" possible? i.e. published work will not be deleted, but no new ND/NC media will be allowed. –Doldrums(talk) 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since one of our mission goals is to create a historical archive what options are open in the EDP for claiming fair use on original contributions where the original contributor cannot or will not change the license? These contributions were made in good faith. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick poll on the content of the resolution

 * There is a poll...see Image use policy/Poll DragonFire1024 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BNZ weighs in
I have avoided any comments above about this so far, but its time I spoke up.

After years as a wikinewise, I am appalled, outraged and disgusted by the turn of events I have witnessed over the last week and will no longer sit and watch the blood, sweat and tears of the many be drown out by the disingenuous hue and cry of the few. A Marxist would observe that being a good capitalist organization, the WMF likes only been in control of everything, not doing what’s best for the projects.

I will NOT support this major change that fundamentally changes the make up of wikinews nor will I encourage anyone who asks me to support it.

I call on the members-at-large of wikinews to ask themselves why the change was done in the name of the them, yet the first many found out about it, after it was forced upon us.. I contend that the wikinews was not represented fairly and its members are not responsible for carrying out any of the changes that are been forced upon them. It is my belief that this was not a deal made on behalf of ::wikinews.

Individual Projects have become the minions of the WMF. Board Members of course, maintain that independence and autonomy are not compromised in this enmeshed situation.

As much as I am annoyed with this policy, I’ll live with in, well at least until the next board elections. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hear Hear!! DragonFire1024 06:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which specific elements of the policy do you disagree with?--Eloquence 06:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In such, it’s not the policy; it’s the process that annoys me.


 * Wikinewises have seen their hopes go up in smoke because of a backroom deal negotiated under duress by a team that did not set out to represent all projects at large.


 * Why has the WMF changed from an organisation that was going to unite all projects from across the wikis, to one that is going to have a fundamental impact on all aspects of how we operate?


 * As it has been shown above, many members of this community accepts that the WMF has a complete lack of respect for the wikinews community and never intended to deal fairly, honestly or forthrightly with the issues facing wikinews today. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy was debated openly on foundation-l and written & approved by community elected Board members. How is this a "backroom deal"? Which hopes have "gone up in smoke"? How could I lack respect for Wikinews when I was the one who proposed the thing in the first place, and made numerous contributions to it?--Eloquence 07:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks for starting Wikinews. This IS a backroom deal...you did not do this with the discussion of the WN community and you also did not, IMO represent this community as an elected member of the board and still don't. Your interests are not about Wikinews anymore. They were. This is a deal that has been forced upon us plain and simple. You never bothered to discuss this with us before you voted and you failed to let us know it was happening. I am sue you are signed up to the Wikinews Mailing List? DragonFire1024 07:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm if I recall Eloquence isn't a member of wikinews-l any longer (Not that anyone uses that. I get about 100x more mail from commons-l, then from wikinews-l. Crap I get more mail from the arbcom list then wikinews-l and we havn't even doubt with a case in over a year. ), however this so called backroom deal, was advertised in Wikinews, as well as on wikizine. its not exactly back room. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am members of boards here in New Zealand, and I can completely understand where the board is coming from, but when this was proposed, everyone's mind was already made up, I followed the debate in the lists, the boards mind, your mind was made up, 'this is happening, please see if this draft has any spelling mistakes'.


 * As for hopes gone up in smoke, the hopes that the wiki policies of consensus will be followed, and loved, the fact that people care and love wikinews, they know wikinews off the back of there hand, they are what makes wikinews have new news articles every day, they watch the sites for vandals, they debate the polices, they assist new users, they have to put up crap, they make the site the joy it is today, they find this trust, the trust everyone had on the Board disappear at the stroke of a Pen. One of wikinews’s best users, Amgine left over issues such as this, and I damn wish he was back. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Far more than spelling mistakes was corrected. In fact, the policy was sustantially overhauled through the debate to allow for a transition period, to remove the requirement for explicit Board approval of all fair use policies, and to more clearly define the types of works for which fair use is acceptable. Certainly we would have been unlikely to deviate from a high standard of freedom as a core guiding principle, but we certainly listened and tried to make sure we take concerns of specific project communities into account.


 * It's sad that you feel that the trust in the Board has "disappeared at the stroke of a Pen". The Board is responsible for making sure that the projects follow a core set of values and principles, of which the freedom of content is one. If you feel that freedom of content is not important: fine, there are other places which do not care, and it is easy enough to set up your own. If you do feel it is important, then it is hard to see what exactly you feel should have been done differently. Any action taken to ensure consistency of values is likely to be somewhat divisive when these values have not been consistently implemented before. That does not make it any less important to take.--Eloquence 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I am here, and on wikipedia is cos I love that freedom of content, the fact is however, we do need images and not every image can be free. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * True. For images where freedom is impossible or very hard to obtain (logos, snapshot photographs of historical events, ..), fair use provides a reasonable alternative. However, in many cases, we have applied fair use when it might not take a lot of effort to get a free photo (such as acelebrity photographs), and when fair use might in fact discourage people from finding free solutions. Necessity is the mother of invention. On the English Wikipedia, for example, a method was recently implemented to encourage the upload of free images; you can see it in action here.


 * I realize that the time-critical nature of news makes that a bit more difficult in our context. The license does not specify in what cases fair use is unacceptable beyond a few general examples, to allow communities certain leeway in developing project-framed policies. However, contributors' own works should always be under free licenses. And this happens to be the main thing that is at issue here.


 * DragonFire wants his photos to remain under a non-free license. I do not see a compelling reason why we should permit this, and in fact many reasons to avoid it. The core reason is that all freedom requires vigilance against power. Licensing is a power that law gives to all authors. It is one that we are tempted to use. Its widespread use, however, causes a loss of freedom to others, and reduces the usefulness of our community efforts. Moreover, it is likely to encourage more such losses of freedom, as other people choose to exercise their power, or argue for further uses of power to be permitted.


 * This is exactly why the Definition of Free Cultural Works exists. As much as anything, the movement for Free Culture is a social movement, and any social movement needs clearly defined standards and values that help to guide it and that aid its communications to the outside world. Wikinews was conceived by me and others to be part of that movement; it is a part of the Wikimedia Foundation project family for that reason. That organization is governed by people, the majority elected from the community, who subscribe to its values.


 * Consequently, the very nature of this division is suspicious. We should not be divided along the lines of our projects. We should be united while retaining our diversity -- united through principles such as free content, neutrality, and open collaboration. It is these principles that we should all strive to protect. I certainly try to do so as member of the Board. It is true that we must make sure that the community is better informed of such debates, to participate more broadly. This is one reason we hired Cary Bass (Bastique) as Volunteer Coordinator, to reach out to the community and get them more involved in organizational issues.


 * Let's work together, on the basis of a shared appreciation for freedom, in figuring out what the boundaries of fair use are in the context of a news site. This is where the community should be creative in interpreting the licensing policy and framing its own guidelines around it.--Eloquence 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear hear!  Thunderhead  ►  08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. My reasons are ligitiment. You are refusing to listen...hear yes...but not listen. I don't want my work destroyed. That is a compelling reason and the fact I have 65 OR images. maybe not compelling to you, but I want the board to decide that...not you. If I could I would revoke my vote that supported you to get on the board. If you cannot accept the fact you allowed the license to be granted and that this policy should NOT affect old work before it went into effect and if you cannot support the community and actually listening instead of parading around like you own this wiki, then you build your own. Do not discourage my fellow Wikinewsies from citing their concerns which are being ignored by basically showing them the door. You did that once with this policy, don't push your buttons. DragonFire1024 07:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Me 2. MessedRocker also left... DragonFire1024 07:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * MessedRocker didn't leave exclusivly over this. The impression I got was that this was more a last straw. Also, what license/image debate were we debating when Amgine left. I don't remember any. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the board as a whole, not any one debate Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The board was not thinking of Wikinews when they did this. If they did, then they would have done more to get us involved than a mailing list NOT posted ANYWHERE on WIkinews...sorry I didn't know I was required to read every Wiki. Wait I cannot read all of them. One is INVITE only...gee I wonder why. For backroom deals like this. DragonFire1024 07:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Free content to be used by any organization, including for profit. The mistake was ever allowing content that did not comply with this. The reform corrects that mistake. The real cause of these complaints is that an exploited flaw is being corrected. Resubmit pictures under the required license and they will not be deleted. If not, then the pictures are not compatible with what is required for their use and must be deleted. Those refusing to relicense their pictures are responsible when that happens.

I apologise to the community for coming across as abrupt and heated earlier, perhaps I misread the policy, or I ignored a former board members advice and assume that criticism represents community consensus and those vocal critics, are more extreme in their opinions. I paid far too much attention and give some users opinions more weight then merit.

My problem was always, as we do news, we need more leeway than pedia, as when this comes into action, images released in media releases will no longer be allowed. Eloquence key message of "Let's work together, on the basis of a shared appreciation for freedom, in figuring out what the boundaries of fair use are in the context of a news site. This is where the community should be creative in interpreting the licensing policy and framing its own guidelines around it" That is powerful for me, now I understand, its not a no fairuse rule, it’s a no fairuse, when there is free rule.

There are other ways of reading the policy, it states "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose" that is the core principle, do we reasonably expect during the time it takes to publish? or eventually? Can we reasonably expect someone to upload a photo, to replace the existing photo in a news article, within the period of 24-48 hours the story is "hot"? I think we should make every effort to find a free photo, but if we can’t find one, then use fairuse.

Thundehead, yes it is our board, we elected it, and if we are not happy with it we can also elect them out :). Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see buried in the above discussion Eloquence's reference to a new policy for Wikipedia aimed at getting free images. That's useless for us; we have 24-36 hours to get a photo on an article and the only reason it should change after the publish tag is applied is if it is a copyvio.
 * I'm nowhere near as idealistic as the board seems to set themselves up as. And I'd point out that this was never mentioned on the wikinews-l mailing list.  I do not expect to have to follow other lists - or wikis - to stay abreast of changes that will impact Wikinews.  I had zero opportunity to oppose the retroactive application of this dictatorial imposition; that might be fine for Wikipedia where you can take your year - or longer - to find a free image.  As I mention above, we have 36 hours tops, and changing a photo six months later is tampering with our historical archive.  While Eloquence is well... eloquent in characterising these no-longer-welcome licenses as an "Exploit" it appears to many here that the board have exploited their privileges to impose this without consultation.
 * I am not opposed to removal of the option to use these licenses. I object strongly to applying this change retroactively.  I have on two occasions now asked if our EDP can include a historical clause that circumvents this retroactive application.  If not I'd like a good reason why.  --Brian McNeil / talk 14:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My Turn To Speak Up
Before I start talking about the policy, I will go ahead and say that I am completley pro-board. The decision that the Board of Trustees made recently to change the licesnsing policy is completley justified. The Foundation's mission statement explicity says that it will provide free content on it's projects. Therefore, some content must be deleted from the servers. Some users have brought up the lack of communication between the Board and the community. This policy was debated by everyone on Foundation-l. Even if you didn't want to join the list, the Foundation offers a service called LSS and an archive of the list which can be accessed at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/. Plus, Wikinews notified our users that there would be a change in the licesing policy. This was nothing that happened all of a sudden. Several users have threatened to leave Wikinews and other projects due to this change of policy. This is really unfortunante, since you can easily relicense your work, if you have created it. If you haven't created it, it's out of your hands. So don't critisize the board that you elected. What the Foundation did was simply to prevent further copyright situations.  Thunderhead  ►  08:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I elected 2 members to represent the interests of Wikinews. I have the right to lash at those who went above the heads of the Wikinews Community. It was all of a sudden and I was never notified personally. Not through e-mail, which is on my user page, not through AIM which is on my user page and not through IRC, which is also in my user page. I am sick of you guys saying "mailing list" this and that. Put a link on the Wikinews sidebar of the e-mail list sign up or provide a clear access to the so called discussion. Its nice to see this was done on an area that unless you frequent other wikis, then you had no clue this was going on. This was done intentionally under the table and was done in a misleading way. If this was an issue then it should have been dealt with PRIOR to Wikinews's implication. It is only an issue because someone decided to start crying over at commons and cried so much this was the only way to shut them up. Well because this is a community and because we have the right to decide what is and is not policy on Wikinews, we have the right to say who does and does not represent Wikinews on the board yesterday, now and tomorrow. We also have the right to decide who gets to mess up our images that we took ourselves, so says the license, so says the upload PRIOR to the implication of this policy. Again, old images should NOT be affected and some exceptions should be made. To say this is final and there is nothing we can do about it is like saying get the hell of this Wiki. The board only prevented the PROTECTION of my work rather than anything else. I have that right to protection. DragonFire1024 09:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So what if they went above the heads of the community, they are running an incorporated charity, and in order to maintain a sound legal status, there are some unlikeable decisions they have to make. If some outlets of the Canadian Blood Service were serving cookies to homeless people, instead of just serving to people who donated blood, they're participating in actions that run in conflict to their organization's purpose. Doesn't matter if the homeless people were hungry. Doesn't matter if they asked politely. Doesn't matter if there's no food bank or soup kitchen in the area. It would be against their purpose, and they have a right to act without prior warning. Little is different in hosting fair use images. --  Zanimum 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

New policy Resolution
This section was deleted during a page move and subsequently manually restored by Doldrums.

Wow. If we can only use free images why don't we just freaking abolish our whole image upload page. This is a very anoying policy. Like Dragonfire said, I AM NOT A FAN OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. So, all of my images that are not copyvios and that are not taken by me will be deleted. Whatever, I guess I will not be uploading any more images to Wikinews once they are all deleted.
 * You can still use fair use, just have to jump through more hoops. Technically free stuff should be at commons. We just got in a big argument with commons a while back(trust me they've improved loads since then), and started uploading Free images locally. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion page is not policy, it is a resolution. -Edbrown05 10:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that image content deemed relevant by writers or by image suppliers for inclusion in a news story has the opportunity to be uploaded here, at this site, under image liscenses that are acceptable to Wikinews. Commons cannot at this time be relied on for supplying images that support specific news reporting. Hopefully that circumstance can change. -Edbrown05 11:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Local experience has been that Commons is not trustworthy from a perspective of respecting the goals of Wikinews. On Commons images are superceded when what is subjectively decided on as a better one or more free one is found.  This alters the appearance of any news story using the media and interferes with our archiving goals.  Also, images are deleted when the contributor's only error was incorrectly citing a license, this was one of the reasons I started archiving - people were interfering with historical documents.
 * As far as I am concerned, the Foundation has a duty to preserve historical documents. They can state that from this point forward certain licenses may not be used, but to retroactively apply that is simply not acceptable.  Had the discussion been highlighted to the community here - where the most impact would be felt - then more people from here would have participated before this became a dictated resolution.  Those who object to licensing options being withdrawn retroactively have my sympathies, I can see how it must seem like burning down the village to save it. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they do...to delete old work, archieved, we would be violating our own polocies. DragonFire1024 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation is what it is. If archives violate the mandate here then they are wrong and must be corrected. Will those who are complaining their images face deletion correct the mistake they made and resubmit them under proper license? With the fair use exception for short time frames and the long implementation time granted what real problems remain?


 * The "what it is", from the previous post, is a resolution, not a mandate. From what is my experience, a resolution is like a New Year's resolution, something undertaken from this day forward, not backward. I do not believe this community can live with the backward compatibility requirements of the Board's resolution. It creates maintenance hassles on content the community does not care to become involved with anymore from a news standpoint.


 * Wikinews looks to what is happening now, with an appreciation that earlier reports were the understanding at that time. Retroactive actions do not fit in here. I propose we leave old news as it was, along with the locally uploaded images that went along with the report.


 * So I echo in agreement to what Brian McNeil posted earlier in this topic section on the retoactive stuff. Sister projects are in much different circumstances than WN. Content on sister projects evolve easily, while here the luxery to evolve is not well formed.


 * I believe Wikinews whould ignore the resolution wording for a 1-year backward re-licensing strategy, and try now to find the right image liscensing fit now for Wikinews. -Edbrown05 08:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I re-checked the FAQ, and I don't think the seriousness of this was highlighted here. Plus, at that time we were dealing with the Commons people who just wanted accreditation.  No link was provided to follow and read the discussion so while we were warned, the warning was in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory at the bottom of the stairs with a "beware of the leopard" sign on the door. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny Brian! Screenshots are a part of local upload licensing. I think that is a difficult licensing issue. I know you, Brian, are concerned with the Crown Copyright license. The Upload Fair use media page needs work. I take it as Wikinews has a year to work on it before the Foundation hands down another "resolution". -Edbrown05 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My two penneth
Secondary to Thunderhead and, I suspect, a few others, I too am "pro-board" on this decision. It might not be the best for Wikinews but we have to decide how we are going to follow it anyway. The foundation have not done this to spite us, it's not a conspiracy, TINC. I just have a couple of questions / comments about what we propose to do: I emplore people to stop reacting so harshly to this. It's not an attack on Wikinews. It's not an attack on your images. By uploading your images to Wikinews you have effectively granted an exclusive license to the foundation to do what they want with them - if you want 100% total free reign over your images, you need to host them yourself. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Major Breaking News - previously we granted a "temporary waiver" to images if the article was of a major significant national / international event (cite: 9/11, 7/7, etc). Will this still be permissable?
 * "Significant value" is highly subjective. I think we either need to establish an objective set of rules and guidelines as to whether an image adds "significant value" or we will find ourselves going around in circles.


 * I also think that "significant value" is subjective, might be better to talk about an image that is undoubtfully related to the news article. I believe we should get rid of the Breaking news-tag; it only allows misuse and serves no purpose; there either is or isn't a free equivalent, but sometimes poeple use it to upload a non-free image of an important story.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The breaking news tag is for the images that someone uploads to say Flicker under a freeish license, that odds are they did not know any better and will relicense it on request or a government photo that is probably free, but we need it clarified. Basically stuff that is legally fair-use, but not within our fair-use policy. --Cspurrier 14:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Email from Erik
I emailed Erik, before I knew he was actually commenting on this page...

Some on Wikinews are interpreting the new image policy to mean that we have to go and clear out our 2000 fair use images, a great deal of which are logos.

Does the policy have to be implemented retroactively on a project such as Wikinews, where once we're done with an article, we tend to never touch it again, and is the Foundation against us using logos in future articles?

Thanks, Nick

Nope; just make sure that all have a template that clearly identifies why they are fair use. This shouldn't be a problem for logos.

The ND photo essays have to go though. -- Peace & Love, Erik
 * And Who is Erik? DragonFire1024 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Erik is User:Eloquence --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. DragonFire1024 17:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Board Members [Staff] resign[ations]
Apparently 2 resigned. One for unknown reasons one for this: (from:) Two Wikimedia employees announce resignations

''In an interview with Wired News, Patrick critisized the Board's ability to "handle things", as well as concerns with the "informal structure of the Board" and "the inexperience of it's seven members". When contacted by phone, Jimbo Wales said that he was confused by Patrick's statements. that this could be thwarted if the board resists changes that are needed.''
 * RESISTS changes that are needed...yup...but they didn't they decided to go ahead and do it anyways.

"What I hope for is for the board to decide to choose a future that will be conducive to a very powerful executive director who can provide some much needed leadership right now," Patrick said.
 * Not just leadership, but a board that cares about the well being and interests of Wikinews. Now that they resigned, and the vote of this policy was unanumous, then should there not be a revote? SHould their votes not count? DragonFire1024 18:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Repeat of what I said on IRC. There should by no stretch of the imagination be a revote, even MORE so the fact it was unanimous means that the votes would not change. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats not the point...point is they no longer represent the foundation or the projects in this matter, and if they resigned, and in one case made the intentions to do so days ago, why should they have a say in the matter if they were planning on resigning anyways? IMO that means lets see how much we can screw the Wikis before we resign... That IMO seems like sabotaging a project or the foundation. DragonFire1024 18:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The two members in question are not part of the Board of Trustees. Based on preliminary research (nothing past member counts), I do not beleive that they had a say in the vote anyway! They were Foundation office staff, not board members. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 18:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with this issue.--Eloquence 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

w:WP:AGF
i strongly suggest that we get to discussing policy and not people and their motivations. my patience with the stuff being said on this page about various people is wearing thin. i know some people feel strongly about this thing, but that does not excuse throwing around every possible allegation that comes to mind. i also suggest those who've made such allegations to remove or redact such comments. Wikinews has been pretty tolerant (perhaps too much) about stuff like this. comments like this wld've merited blocks on WP pretty quick. –Doldrums(talk) 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Its hard to assume good faith when stuff is hidden from Wn and the community...experiences speak loder than words. DragonFire1024 18:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if this is not in the spirit of assuming good faith, but it wasn't hidden. I knew about it, I'm sure many others knew about it. And a notice was posted on template:wn news which goes on the water cooler. Perhaps it could have been advertised better, but it wasn't hidden, with evil board members chuckling on the secret #wikimedia-cabal channel, saying we'll screw over those wikinewsies, Muhuhuhuhu!. It just was not like that. Sure it wasn't done in the greatest manner, but it wasn't that. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well i don't believe it. as Brianmc said nothing was sent to the Wikinews e-mail. 1 no one was ever physically informed on Wikinews. We never got a say or a discussion, instead our policies and the way we run the community just got shit on. And lets see...a PRIVATE Wiki...a cabal channel...im still not convinced...I ahve been here a year and a half and know about every policy that effects Wikinews except this one. If it was so well known...then why all this? Give me a break. Excuses excuses. DragonFire1024 04:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews is a part of the larger Wikimedia. One must follow everything if they expect to know everything. There were several channels used. If not informed then the fault is the user's for not following any of them.
 * Bawolff, when the announcement was put in Template:Wn news it did not have a link to where this discussion was taking place, it did not mention image deletion, and it certainly did not say "this may be applied retroactively and images may need relicensed or deleted". I accept there was no effort to hide this, but there wasn't any effort to really highlight what it could mean.  Initial interpretations of what the policy meant that people were left believing we'd lose 2000 images, so the reaction we've had here is understandable - if a little too shrill.
 * Dragonfire1024, I hate to say it, but we've got to live with this. I'd like you to perhaps pour a few cups of WN:TEATM and then come back and work on what the bounds of our eventual EDP are. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have to live with it...and I will still fight...one way or the other. I am sick of this already...GOL Images in most cases are the fact that they are the only ones that are available for a certain article (aka the hotel controversy in buffalo). There might be only a few images that I can change the license to but as for the license, I don't know...take a look at this:.
 * One issue is that the images of the hotel renditions(and this rendition:, , , ), Images that I took...MIGHT be able to be relicensed...but I am not sure as they are photographs of plans and renditions...I am not sure if the images fall under free or not...so I will need opinions on that. AS for this image: , I had a fight with the woman who supposeably owns the image (she does not agree that images before 19(something) are not copyrighted). So I am not sure how to proceed with this one and will need opinions.


 * As for these images: and the images of documents here:  Should remain CC ND because of their legal capacities...they are legal documents to which should not be altered whatsoever. Same for this:  as it is an image of a signed statement. Items like this are vital to the articles they are in and should NOT be deleted.This one too:.


 * This image is also a difficult one. Not sure how to proceed with this one either.
 * I highly doubt legal documents could be considered nd whatsoever. they'd probably be fair use. I don't knwo though, anyone know? Bawolff ☺☻ 01:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you want someone changing your signature name or other information in the images? I think that ND for those images is pretty reasonable. IMO those images should not be modified whatsoever because information could be easily changed to show false information and names etc. DragonFire1024 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I can have some help with ideas on what to relicense those following images as??? DragonFire1024 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * False information is covered under different laws unrelated to copyright. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

EDP and publicity photos
Since we're as well avoiding the hotly disputed parts of this, what are we going to do about publicity photos? As I understand it a lot of these should be deleted if a free alternative exists (living person portraits). However, this conflicts with our archiving policy. Can our EDP allow publicity photos but have a warning in the template that they may not be used on new articles without first checking for a free alternative? (And make this easy - there are options on some image search engines to look for commons licenced stuff). Then, if a free alternative is found, the image is marked as depreciated and no longer permitted to be used on new articles.

Images on portal and category pages would be a different matter I think. In those cases I'd expect the free image to supercede the non-free. I can't think of any examples where this would be the case, but if we were to do mini biographies on pages about people (Eg. George W. Bush) then we would be looking to replace the use of images there. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is true...our archiving policy does not allow us to delete articles or images that have been saved as Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Once written and published they are historical documents; they should not continue to be updated or changed. Especially, they should not be altered to an angle or POV not reflective of the article as it was published. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia From: WN:NOT.

Would Images fall under the same rule? IMO I think so...DragonFire1024 12:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Our image policy already (before this resolution) made images that have free replacements be replaced. This has happened in the past to archived articles (assuming the images are fairly similiar). This is nothing new. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Logos
Image:Wells Fargo Barclays logos merger.jpg looks to be problematic according to my reading of the rules on the corresponding category page. This is due to it being a merge between two corporate logos. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And then what about: Image:English Portal Banner.jpg. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't open the can of worms. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about the image on the Google portal. --SVTCobra 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a disaster already. DragonFire1024 01:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the google portal is an issue. (although i don't know that). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merging the logos is just as much fair use as showing only one. There is no issue here.--Eloquence 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Logos are copyrighted or trade marked by the specific companys. Commons does not have logos? DragonFire1024 03:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Commons doesn't, but they can be uploaded locally under Fair use (which may have to be modified to allow transformations, but that was true before the new policy as well).--Eloquence 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

foundation-1 mailing list
You can sign up here: Foundation-1 Mailing list. It is supposably one of the spots where the Board "discussed" the image policy. So tell me this...how can everyone have known about this policy and "discussed" in the large numbers that Eloqunce makes them out to be if only close to 700 people are signed up? How could this have been so well known if there are countless millions (perhaps hundreds of million) users total when you combine all the Wiki's with only less than 700 members subscribed to the list? (BTW I JUST signed up.) DragonFire1024 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * theres another 600 on announce-l, another 300 on the wikizine website, as well a whole bunch at LSS, and a very great big number (Over 1000 would be my geuss) at w:WP:SIGNPOST. As well theres probably other places i missed. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bawolff...Thats not even close to the amounts of users on every Wiki...you mention only possibly thousands of the countles millions. DragonFire1024 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends which numbers you use. On the english wikipedia side, I hear numbers to the tune of about 5000 active editors. almost all users on wikipedia have edited under ten times. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also at Signpost there is a very small one sentence notification of the boards decision stating ONLY this: Early Tuesday, another resolution, passed on March 23, was made public. This resolution regulates the usage of non-free content, under certain legal provisions such as fair use.
 * There was a lot more in the past before it was official Bawolff ☺☻ 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing more...no article, no discussion. If this is a way of letting the Wiki users of all the Wikis "know" then they did a pis poor job. In fact this even shows how little effort they put forth to make sure a majority of users Wiki-wide knew what was going on, or given a chance to discuss this.


 * Note: I am unable to locate anywhere to sign up for signpost...in fact its totally relied on you going to it...not it going to you. You have to add the template to sign up to it and plus you have to go to Signpost inorder to do that...which is NOT advertised on Wikinews. DragonFire1024 02:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Signpost is a wikipedia paper, they're not going to have a signup sheet for wikinews (wikizine is the one you'd probably be intreasted in). I was just making the point that the majority of wikimedian's would be on wikipedia [as you were talking about millions of users], and a good number would hear about it from that. If you're on wikipedia, you can get a bot to automatically post the latest addition to your talk every time it comes out. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the current template provided to subscribe: does NOT work on Wikinews, despite it saying ''Get the latest issue delivered straight to your user page! To add the box on the right to any page, copy and paste...''

RE Bawolff: What good does that do users who do not contribute to Wikipedia? Are you saying I am required to have to monitor Wikipedia 24/7 even though I have very little interest in it besides small factual edits regarding linking to Wikinews? DragonFire1024 02:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. You said Wikimedia has a great many users, much less than subscribed to foundation-l, I'm pointing out that some people get it from other sources. For many people that would be the signpost, as wikipedia is a more popular project and many people use it. All I suggest is to sign up for announce-l, or read LSS. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I said Wiki-WIDE meaning All wikis. Also note the "discussion" took place on an OFF WMF site...How am I to know what this is or how to get to it with nothing on Wikinews to get me there? Same with Signpost or the foundation mailing list...This means they EXPECT us to read ALL wiki sites and sign up for EVERYTHING to get information. I get enough e-mail as it is. DragonFire1024 03:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm that's a mailing liost hosted by wmf servers. Other people just mirror that mailing list for easier reading. It also exisits somewhere on http://lists.wikimedia.org Bawolff ☺☻ 03:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Better happy inside wikimedia link: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028512.html Bawolff ☺☻ 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon, the only thing that would apparently make you happy is a personal letter in your mailbox that asks you for permission when the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation acts to make existing high level legal policies across projects consistent. Yes, we should do more to get the community involved in such processes. But this was a community-driven process, and followed to make our policy reflect existing community values. Your ongoing aggressive posturing on this page, often accompanied by completely nonsensical claims and reflecting a very limited understanding of copyright law, certainly doesn't inspire me to engage in constructive dialogue with you on future issues.--Eloquence 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually no you are greatly mistaken. What would make me happy is discussing the policy with Wikinews or any other project DIRECTLY before implementing it, and you did not. You can tell me where your discussion took place but you cannot expect me or anyone else to read every Wiki and sign up for every mailing list. That's ridiculous. What would make me happy is for the Board to realize that this harms wikinews greatly and that they did not consider that. News agencies cannot always use free content...thats just the truth. By preventing us to use certain licenses, you prevent Wikinews from ever having quality images, and or a wide variety of them, and further discourages uploads. This IMO is just complete disregard for the progress and expansion of Wikinews. DragonFire1024 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disregards wikinews process as what?[quote from main page header]

"Welcome to Wikinews

The free news source you can write!"


 * Seems to me that this resolution increases our progress to following our very own slogan. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again our views of "free" differ. I stated, in my User:DragonFire1024/DRAFT letter to foundation-1 mailing list on why this image policy Will Hurt Wikinews in Number 4; A news agency has to at some point use content that may be semi free, but none the less is considered free, even if changes cannot be edited cropped etc...(at least in my case they can do as they please with the images so long as 1: attribution is given to Wikinews, not me and that no changes are made) but they can still do anything else they want with it. All content, in terms of reporting news cannot always be 100% free. It is just not possible. DragonFire1024 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the version of the word free that the header of the project has linked to since the start has been my definition so I think that's what the slogan meant... Bawolff ☺☻ 04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This comes down to the question that, for me is important. When we use press releases / images released to the press can we use them? if we can good. If we can't this policy will destroy us. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no change here: If the PR is under an explicit attribution-like license, we can use it with attribution. If it isn't, we can't. That has always been the case.--Eloquence 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We can use it as fair use still was my impression (with the exception of living people). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Stubbornness is not any way forward. Opposition demanding others do impossible things and making illogical claims with threat of leaving is useless. They are almost demanding others give them an excuse to leave when they just want to leave anyway. Be honest with yourselves now as that is the only reason for having uncompromising opposition.


 * Nope, but understanding is a way forward. DragonFire is saying his images uploads are free under the No-Dirivative license, meanining they can be redistributed free of charge, but you cannot alter them. If that is a licensing flaw, then double-check what Brian McNeal posted earlier in this discussion: Why You Should Never Post Your Picture on the Internet. I'm tired of this and resolve never to post to this page agian. -Edbrown05 08:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It keeps coming back to the same thing. What does free mean. well free is a kind of crapy word in my opinion because of its ambiguality, but I (as well i believe the board feels) that nd is not free, nc is not free. You don't simply need to be able to repost it freely, you have to be able to modify it freely. The example you gave, regardless of the license, he can do that. You can more or less ignore all copyrights if you're making fun of something. nd won't change that. As well, how many people do you really think would ask permission first? Bawolff ☺☻ 09:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Image use policy/New wikimedia policy action plan/FAQ does (now) address this whole issue. I strongly recommend following the advice on the project page and reading it. Uncle G 10:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Here...I posted way above but will probably get missed. But rules are rules like laws are laws...we can only make them...its up to them to follow.

Take a look at this link from the United States Copyright office Rights of Attribution and Integrity. Alos anyone else interested in their rights.

(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —
 * Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right,

and my favorite:

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right. DragonFire1024 09:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what you want DragonFire1024, what it is saying is that copyright - in itself - has these protections unless you waive them. So, even if you don't use a no-derivatives license you are afforded these protections. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An addendum to that would be that someone who wants to do any of the above listed things will do so regardless of the copyright on the image. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also take that as you cannot simply grant the license to copyright, only to take it away and destroy the work. If you read just abouve (in the link) it also says that I as the author have the right to grant who does what to it and when. DragonFire1024 09:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of copyright is that the author gets an exclusive monopoly on his/her minds works for his life+70 years. We (I) think that such monoply does not premote innovation, as it doesn't allow you to show other people such work, let alone change and build upon such intellectual works. So we ask you to waive some rights. IANAL I don't know if you still retain thoose rights or not, but the general idea is you allow others to share, modify your stuff. Some specific modifications, such as those that are blatent lies, or hurt people, etc are stoped under non-copyright laws which is unrelated to this. Bawolff ☺☻ 09:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, for the cc-by-2.5, you do not waive your moral rights, which sound pretty similiar to what you mention (except do they exsist in the US? IANAL). Bawolff ☺☻ 09:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its basically copied and pasted from my links above with an addition from your link: Copyright holders have the right to control adaptations, or the preparation of "derivative works." This right is given under copyright law. See 17 U.S.C. § 106. DragonFire1024 10:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That section refers to works of "visual arts", as defined in the same law. It doesn't apply to your pictures. --+Deprifry+ 10:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actully it does: 5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; From US copyright link above. DragonFire1024 10:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've got somewhat confused. Section 106A, the one you quoted in full at the start doesn't apply to you. Section 106 of course does, but those are not an author's moral rights but his default rights to control and profit from his works. Not fully retaining those rights is pretty much the point of working on a site that strives to produce free content. --+Deprifry+ 10:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does it say profit in there anywhere? And a Picture is a picture regardless of what form its in. DragonFire1024 10:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Continued from above 106 (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; - Allowing authors and publisher to profit from creative works is the primary purpose of established copyright legislation (Of course it is not stated explicitly). As for your second point, in order for for a photograph to qualify for the additional protection of 106A, it (from the definition I linked to) needs to be "produced for exhibition purposes only". Clearly and sadly (because I believe moral rights are far more legitimate than economic rights) your pictures do not meet that threshold. --+Deprifry+ 10:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. these images are exhibited on Wikinews...and are used to be exhibited on news stories where ever. The profit statement does not apply either as that is a clause in case a profit is to be made. Its not stated explicitly and never was. If these images are not produced to be exhibited, then what?? DragonFire1024 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's take a look at the entire section (emphasis mine)

"A “work of visual art” is —

(1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or

(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.

A work of visual art does not include —

(A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;

(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container;

(iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);

(B) any work made for hire; or

(C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.23"


 * So, if you took your pictures for the sole purpose of displaying them in, say, a gallery, then they would qualify as visual art. Otherwise not. --+Deprifry+ 14:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

EDP Again
Why would my images (or a majority) NOT be able to be under an EDP? DragonFire1024 10:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * see expanded FAQ. –Doldrums(talk) 10:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See: User:DragonFire1024/Images to request for EDP DragonFire1024 11:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen it and it says certain images can be used under the EDP. Doldrums, please read closely. Eloquence, please do not ignore the EDP. This is something we need in order for Wikinews to survive. So where is the EDP? How do we use it? Everyone says there is one, but I cannot find it anywhere on Wikinews. DragonFire1024 07:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As the FAQ says, Wikinews has always had the equivalent of an EDP - Fair use, though it was never called the EDP, a term that gained currency after the board passed its resolution. the purpose of this page is to see whether Fair use conforms to the resolution, and change it (Wikinews:Fair use) if it does not . –Doldrums(talk) 07:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Grant of license" prohibited?
Image_copyright_tags says that images are prohibited if the copyright holder has licensed them to Wikinews, and will be deleted, citing the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. But this policy doesn't prohibit "with-permission" images; it just says that they have to be part of your EDP. So why are these images prohibited? It's stupid to prohibit them on Wikipedia, but it's really stupid and harmful to prohibit them on Wikinews. They are quite important in a neutral and reliable news source. 71.167.62.22 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me be forward here and say that there are a lot of stupid things about policies forced onto Wikinews. irid:t 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How was this forced on Wikinews? Don't you decide your own EDP? 71.167.62.22 02:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We're controlled by the WMF (in my admittedly limited understanding of the situation) because the WMF assumes liability for everything we do, including copyright violations. Anyone suing for damages on a copyright violation would sue the WMF. So, in other words, it doesn't matter what policy we enact; the big iron claw would come by and delete our images. irid:t 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What does copyright violation have to do with anything? Getting permission from the copyright holder is a hell of a lot less risky from a legal standpoint than claiming fair use without even asking the copyright holder.  Getting permission should be preferred to fair use (while free content is preferred to with-permission-only). 71.167.62.22 02:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the process of obtaining permission for the usage of an image is often longer (and sometimes much longer) than the typical lifetime of a news article. In other words; by the time we ask for permission to use an image and receive a response, typically, the article is already ready to be archived. irid:t 02:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But you should still ask, in addition to claiming fair use. And those tags should still be used to indicate that you have permission in those cases.   And you should be allowed to use images with permission even if they're not strictly fair use, as long as there is no freer alternative.
 * But how do news agencies all use the same images so quickly if asking for permission from the photographer takes so long? 71.167.62.22 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because, sadly, Wikinews looks like a bunch of unprofessional, untrained, disorganized citizen journalists. On two occasions (the only two times I've tried, actually) I emailed image authors looking for permission to use their picture. One I never heard back from, and from the other, I only received "lol".
 * On the point of declaring fair use and asking for permission, it sort of offends someone if you say "We're going to use your image whether you give us permission or not, because it's fair use". But I imagine that's a corner case, and we should probably make that policy. irid:t 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify. GoL (grant of license) is allowed, as long as the grant is compatible with the free culture definition. (no non-commercial or wikinews only grants). For the record we had a Fair use policy (EDP) before the resolution came along, that allowed all the GoL stuff, but it wasn't compatible with the wmf resolution, hence all the confussion about this. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The moral of the story being: Don't trust me for reliable information. :) irid:t 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

no non-commercial or wikinews only grants


 * That's exactly what I'm talking about. These are permitted as part of your EDP, so why is your project prohibiting them?  Images, free or otherwise, will only help the project.  (Not having images is one of the reasons for the "unprofessional, untrained, disorganized citizen journalists" sentiment, as irid said.)  You should use whatever you legally can (while preferring more free licenses whenever possible). 71.167.62.22 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time I read that, I thought it said something about that EDP only worked for Fair use. However that doesn't seem to be there when i just looked. I'm going to go ask some people about that. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"a project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status. Examples include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content and http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek."

Seems to suggest it only works for fair use, but not 100% clear. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you figure? If a copyright holder has given you permission to reproduce one of their images on the Wikinews site, then it is legal to reproduce the image on the Wikinews site.  It's quite simple.  How do you think regular news sites reproduce images that are copyrighted by others?
 * "Can our EDP allow content that is non-commercial or used with permission?"
 * "Yes, content with requirements that otherwise violate the Licensing policy can be permitted under an exemption doctrine policy, if it meets the criteria set out in the policy and that EDP."
 * And getting permission (which includes implicit permission like NC-only) means you won't get sued. Fair use is just a defense if you do get sued.  It's much sketchier and not well-defined in law.
 * Permission should be preferred to (and used in conjunction with) fair use whenever possible (and, of course, free content should be preferred over permission-only).
 * 71.167.62.22 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I see it is simple. We have permission to use grant of license images. Wikinews has the permission and has or had exclusive permission. Any news agency would be jumping for joy at that. We, by asking permission have a grant of license. And if WMF does not like that, then too bad. This is a news site. And thats how news agencies operate whether the board likes it or not. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)