Wikinews talk:Image use policy/New wikimedia policy action plan/FAQ

This is good, but is also at the same time bad. It is completely one-sided and not necessary true. I would like cites and proofs for this Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * all of it? maybe u can note what bits are suspect, or tag those bits. –Doldrums(talk) 11:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i saw the one comment u placed. –Doldrums(talk) 11:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is where I agree with BrianNZ. (Based on placement of his comment.) We should not be changing the image on an archived story unless it is a copyvio. If we have a publicity photo in use on an archived article it should remain.  New articles should not reuse the image, but minimal changes should be made to our stories.  Personally I'd rather see images removed than replaced as I feel it is deceptive to alter the archive. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you feel this is true even if we make it clear from now on in articles where fair use is used that the images may be replaced post-archiving?--Eloquence 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not so easy to answer. My take on this from an archive perspective is that if we use a non-free (but fair use) image because we can't find anything better when the article is published then it should stay on the article.  If at a later point a free alternative is found it should be used on all new articles, not changed on existing articles.  This is down to us being a news source; the story should look the same as it was shortly after publishing. This is where I and a few others stick on this.  An article on Wikipedia has to be consulted regularly to obtain the most up to date information.  A news story is a fixed piece once published for a day or so.  This allows for media on Wikipedia to be superceded by free media.  On Wikinews I believe we should obsolete (i.e. cease using on new material) instead of editing our archive. I cannot accept that if one of our readers comes back looking for a story in ten years time a publicity photograph current at the time of the article has been replaced with a free image taken five years later. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i too don't like replacing images in archived articles, and would be inclined towards replacing a non-free image with a note saying "image removed for blah" rather than with a different free image. –Doldrums(talk) 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that any change to archived content is mostly a matter of disclosing such changes appropriately to the reader. If, on the other hand, any publicity photo condemns us to avoidable fair use to eternity, I'd rather then kill such uses altogether.--Eloquence 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the thing with images is that since the old image is deleted, the reader has to essentially take our word for the assertion that the new image says pretty much what the old image does. she has no way to verify hermself. further, changes to the content of archived articles made only because the news organisation now wants to do things differently goes flatly against the whole idea of archiving and historical documents. with image removals (no replacement), i tend to think it along the same lines as deleting a belatedly discovered copyvio image from an archived article, and noting the deletion in the article.  –Doldrums(talk) 14:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the confusion in the above is based upon the false premise that if a non-free image is used in an archived story, we must remove the image from the story. I suggest that editors read the FAQ again, because it clearly states that there are three courses of action in such a situation. The image can be removed from the story; the image can be replaced with a free content replacement; or an appropriate fair use rationale for that image in that story can be found. Now we have several stories that require attention in this regard. We have some stories that are over a year old at this point, such as Witnesses of fire in Vladivostok under investigation, where the "breaking news" images have not been replaced or suitably licenced, per policy. Archiving is not a get-out clause for not adhering to our copyright policy. A copyright problem is a copyright problem, no matter how long ago it occurred. "But we've archived the story." is not a defence against infringement of copyright in one of our stories. Uncle G 14:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any confusion in the above. If an image is a copyright violation it should go.  If you bring it up on WN:DR nobody will vote to keep it.  There is an implication from Eloquence's statement that the objective is to phase out fair use over time.  You can do that on Wikipedia, you can't do that here without editing history. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i don't think anyone is arguing that archiving trumps everything, including copyright laws. (i, for one, explicitly said so above). the concern is the following. we're not comfortable with replacing a non-free image with a non-identical free image, as it would change the content of an archived article in an opaque way. so either we find a fair use justification, which i don't think is likely for many non-free images we have. for eg. i don't think our use of IRIN images constitutes fair use, we use it because they are released with a broad, but not free, license. these images serve our purpose very well - we won't have good alternatives to many of them in the foreseeable future. so the resolution will mean that wikinews will have to remove some (many?) really valuable images from its archived articles - and people are understandably concerned and looking for a way out, if one exists. that's not the same as saying archiving trumps copyright policy. –Doldrums(talk) 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact is, it is wrong to change archive policy. If we allow imaged to be changed, then lets put the whole WN:ARCHIVE up on DR, as its no longer needed. I also have found it very rich that both Eloquence and Uncle G, who were good users in the early days, but have not really edited for years, feel free to come in and tell us "this is it, live with it".
 * I strongly support our right, to still use images released to the press (and yes, some are copyright, for example New Zealand Government released images are Crown Copyright), and if this current right is been taken away, we are no longer a news site, and the WMF should just pull the plug.
 * And Brianmc is right, if its a strongly copyright vio, it won't be saved, when its on DR, but they should not be replaced, ever.  Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Taking the right for a new agency to publish semi free material is like taking every image and flushing it down the toilet. 100% free images, in regards to a news agency, cannot always be free. It is not possible and there is no logic to take that right away from a news agency. Would you like Wikinews to start paying for images? As for archives...history is history...policy is policy. I already stated WN:NOT "articles are NOT a work in progress but rather a historical document." We cannot rewrite history nor the image, especially if an OR image, and replace it with an image of someone or something taken 5 years before or after the event. That new image has nothing to do with the current news at the time it was published...aka  DragonFire1024 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Not edited for years"? You may want to check your history there. Moreover, the constant implication that unless you are feeding your edit count on a regular basis, you're not a "contributor" is rather disturbing. Wikinews is part of a Wikimedia family of projects. There is no single contributor to Wikinews who is putting more time into Wikimedia than I am. So cut it with the constant insinuations that one is not a "regular contributor" if one hasn't been actively part of this particular Wikimedia tribe for a few months. It is jarring, and it is offensive. Brian, you know better than to take the debate to this level.


 * Archives are not sacrosanct. I defined the initial archive requirement. If I hadn't done so, I doubt many people would even care about it now. There is nothing wrong with replacing an image in an archive, if you clearly explain why you have done so. If, and only if, the information value of the free image is not equivalent, fair use in the long run is justified. However, in many cases, fair use is only invoked to get a quick image of some celebrity or politician. The lighting conditions and the perspective are usually irrelevant. If, on the other hand, the photo shows the politician hitting protesters with his cane, then it's a historical photograph, and a mere portrait does not carry the same information. This should be the decisive criterion.--Eloquence 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I take offense to a Wikinewsie, who does little to improve Wikinews, who is an administrator, elected to enforce Wikinews policy as well as assist the communtiy, and participate in community forums, who makes decisions for Wikinews policy without informing the Wikinews community or asking them to vote on policy, which is what we are supposed to do. Thats more offensive than telling someone they don't contribute enough. DragonFire1024 03:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Got it now? Or do I need to use stylesheets?--Eloquence 04:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And so? Maybe it shouldn't be. And instead of scrolling and such, instead of waving us off like you did with this policy, you need to listen and actually do something about what we have to say. If you are to represent Wikinews for the people/users then it is your duty. We have the power to elect and de-elect. that means we have a say whether you or the board like it or not. Now I compromised by relicensing more than half of my content but yet you have yet to describe to anyone what an EDP is and where it is and what we need to do with it. That seems unfair. So wikinews maybe part of the foundation, but so are these images. DragonFire1024 07:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've spent hours of my life debating this issue with you, hours I will not get back. Whatever you accuse me of, you have punished me more than enough. Reality is not going to change based on you not liking it. That goes for Wikinews being a WMF project as much as it goes for images that are your own work being ineligible for fair use exemption. The "ED" in EDP stands for "Exemption Doctrine", which is just a fanciful term for "fair use" (it is not called "Fair Use Policy" because other countries do not recognize it under that name).--Eloquence 11:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)