Wikinews talk:Image use policy

Latest comment: 15 years ago by InfantGorilla in topic question on gol

Non-commercial/Non-derivative image licenses edit

The Wikinews:Fair use policy clearly delineates what kind of graphics are allowed to be hosted on Wikinews. They are exclusively publicity graphics, corporate logos, and some screenshots. It also clearly states we may not host images which are from any other news source as that might be considered competitive under the Fair Use defense.

On another note: the board very reluctantly allowed Wikinews to host limited images, and only after much argument about the Fair Use policy. - Amgine/talk 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

So are you arguing that WN may only host Fair Use images and that GFDL, CC-*** or other types of images should not be allowed? I do not believe that is the intent of the policy. The intent was to allow Wikinews to have a image policy to allow it to use images that may not fit into the Wikicommons criteria. The policy *also* limited what could be uploaded under "fair use" for WN (since the concept of "fair use" is very sticky legally). I don't think it meant to disallow WN-hosting to other images that we are given permission to use.
The "competitive" restriction is a fair use defense. Since under fair use - we are basically swiping someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, the "no competitor" rule allows us to state that the use of the image we have no permission to use in no way hurt the commercial opportunities of other news sources. But with CC;BY-*** - this does not apply since we DO have permission to use the image. -- Davodd | Talk 05:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, that is the intent of the policy. Wikinews should only host Fair Use images which may not be hosted at Commons.
The "competitive" is point where Fair use fails. If we are not competitive then the use is tranformative. - Amgine/talk 05:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
But this has nothing to do with Fair Use, and instead has to do with the third section on this page: "Grants of license". The policy (that the board approved) authorizes images that have additional restrictions to be used on Wikinews. The fair use argument should not come into this debate at all. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Uhm, the fair use would ignore those licenses. That's the point of it. The Fair use defense allows those "limitations" to not be relevant. - Amgine/talk 04:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I think there is some confusion. These non-commercial images that are in question here are not being uploaded with the intent to classify them as fair use. They are being uploaded under the "grant of license" clause of the policy. They are definitely not "fair use" — that's a legal term applied to a specific set of reasons when we as a news organization can use copyrighted images. In this case, we are talking about CC-licensed images that are not Commons-compatible, but are still newsworthy. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
IN short:
  1. Fair use = Copyrighted images we do not have specific permission to use, but use anyway.
  2. CC-*** = Copyrighted images we do have specific permission to use.
It seems odd to me that there is an argument at all. Why are people speedy deleting images from our site that we have permission to use without first going through the WN:DR process? -- Davodd | Talk 04:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason why the images have been deleted is we are supposed to only host Fair Use images. All other images are supposed to be hosted through Commons. I understand we may have been given permission to use these specific images, but we can't host them here unless we can convince the board to allow Wikinews a broader image hosting exception.
For this specific and singular situation, it might be easier to contact the copyright holder and request the images be re-licensed, until we get a broader permission from the board. - Amgine/talk 05:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Fair Use policy mentions our ability to use some non-free, non-fair-use photos when it's a Breaking News story (i.e. when the image is really important). I would say the image of a policeman with his head bleeding definitely fits this profile.

This includes screenshots, publicity photos explicitly intended for the media, logos, and images under "semi-free" licenses which we might get under a fully free license eventually, but where a breaking news situation requires us to make a temporary compromise.

The above was Eloquence's statement to foundation-l when approved by the board. I encourage the community to accept these non-free images on a longer-term basis, too. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Commons, article archives, and free images. edit

As many of you are aware, especially the admins who have been working through the archives these past weeks, many of our archived articles have been edited via Commons, by deleting or altering images used in archived articles. This has resulted in a couple hundred articles being edited after they were archived.

Wikinews's relationship with Commons has a long history of difficulties, but a lot of use of commons as well. The ongoing relationship issues are being worked on. But to secure the integrity of Wikinews articles I suggest the following changes to this policy:

Remove the section regarding free images.
The uploading of free images to Wikinews, for the current time, is not harmful to Wikinews' mission.
Add section regarding photojournalism as a class of image to upload to Wikinews.
This would specifically include the CC-by-nd or CC-by-nc images photo journalists wish to upload here.

- Amgine | talk en.WN 00:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND are definitely not acceptable. This is Foundation policy as repeatedly stated on different mailing lists.--Eloquence 21:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not the case, as you well recall. -NC/-ND are useful on some projects, depending on the use. They're clearly more free than GFDL on the relicensure variable, for example. - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What am I supposed to recall? The last time the issue of NC/ND came up, it was in the context of Wikisource. The idea of allowing such content was rejected by Jimmy, Anthere and Angela. Angela also pointed out that the Foundation bylaws specifically state that our goal is to provide free content. That the FDL requires reprint of the license text makes it unsuitable for certain documents (e.g. pictures); it was, after all, created for software manuals. That does not make it a non-free license, it makes it a purpose-specific license. If you want me to raise this issue, again, specifically for Wikinews on foundation-l, I will. But the answer is going to always be the same: limited fair use is allowed on each project in line with its policies, everything else has to be free content. Fair use always retains a special status: it is allowed only under limited circumstances, content under such provisions may always be replaced with free versions (even if inferior), and can be speedy deleted under many circumstances. We do not allow a third class of "semi-free" works under licenses like NC or ND. This is the best way to maintain a clear barrier of separation between free and non-free content, and to incentivize the use of free licenses.--Eloquence 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restoring Gol edit

This section, part of the first version of this policy and the version approved by the WMF Board, was removed unilaterally as "creep". It cannot be creep if it were a part of the original document. - Amgine | t 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could I ask exactly what version was approved by the Board? This one? Also, is this approval documented anywhere? Thanks. Adambro (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it was the April 19th version, but it was only accepted in conjunction with the WN:FU at the same time, that is, the board members only would agree if we had the very limited whitelist of that time. I don't know if there was a formal resolution; I was lobbying the board members directly by phone and IRC and Angela informed me the board had approved and gave instructions to the Devs to allow uploads for Wikinews (at the time I was under the impression it was over protests from the devs, though that may have been incorrect.) I do remember seeing something about it on, possibly in old meeting minutes. - Amgine | t 14:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the version of WN:FU, whilst not directly related to this GOL issue, at the time it was apparently accepted by the board stated that "Unacceptable licenses would be: Creative Commons CC-BY-NC (prohibits commercial use), Creative Commons CC-BY-ND (prohibits derivative works)", which makes me wonder how we ever did allow such licenses.
Focusing now back on the GOL issue, whilst I accept that the version you suggest was accepted by the board did allow GOL images, this was in April 2005 and things have changed since then. In May 2005, Jimbo Wales sent an email to the WikiEN-l mailing list stating that non-commercial and by permission only images would be deleted. Whilst this comment was made in relation to the situation on Wikipedia, it might be reasonable to consider it relevant to our project also. Then, in March 2007, the board passed its resolution on licensing policy which clearly defined acceptable free licenses and set out the way in which projects can allow non-free content in limited situations. I cannot see how this permits the use of GOL content. For a start it states that an EDP "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". I would suspect that in many cases with GOL content this may be the case. Adambro (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First point first: cc-nc/nd/etc. are unacceptable licenses for free use; this does not preclude their use under fair use rationales.
Second point: Unlike Wikipedia, a primary element of Wikinews is to serve as a permanent archive. As such, we need to keep perfect archives of our original content as it stood at the time it was published. Deleting or altering images fundamentally harms our value as an historical record. It also suffices to show why later uploads do not meet the "same purpose".
To explain that last element is extremely difficult if you do not accept the original premise for Wikinews as a permanent record, which would then make the explanation redundant, so I shan't waste the effort. - Amgine | t 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding your first point, I very much agree however there is a long history for these licenses been used on their own as if they aren't to be considered unfree. They all should have the unfree license tag removed and be replaced by an appropriate fair use tag and rationale. In many cases I doubt that an appropriate tag and rationale could be used.
I understand that part of our project's mission is for old news stories to be maintained as an archive and this I agree with. Where I disagree as I have mentioned on a number of occasions now to you is that the archiving policy should prevent us from dealing with image issues. Most of the descriptions of the archiving policy which I have read specifically highlight the article text as to be preserved but don't mention images.
It is also impossible for us to use the archiving policy as a defence against accusations of copyright infringement considering that it is perfectly feasible for us to change archived articles as issues are highlighted. It is irresponsible for us to attempt to claim this and ignore the Board's resolution whilst leaving the Foundation more vulnerable to legal proceedings in the process. I don't think I've ever supported the suggestion that we should start changing images on articles where issues emerge, rather simply delete the offending image. Adambro (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is perfectly possible for us to change an archived article, but if we do so it is no longer accurate as to what we published originally. This includes images. An example is the rather famous Truman US presidential election image - by itself it constitutes a news story. Images are particularly relevant news media, complementing and expanding the content of any news story. It is quite rare to find a news site online in which every story is not accompanied by an image.
You are effectively pitting the Board's decision to create Wikinews, with its archive mission, against the Board's decision to limit newly uploaded media content. For Wikinews the answer is clear: it's mission over-rides the later clarification. Ensuring that those legacy images are clearly showing their fair-use rationale would be the mission to improve the Foundation's security within Wikinews.
One of the reasons images which are actually free are occasionally hosted on Wikinews is where those images have been edited, altered, replaced, or deleted on Commons. It's one of the very few cases where the Commons community does not fit well with the Wikinews project; they do not maintain their media as archives, nor is it a part of that community's mission to do so. In such cases I do support hosting those images here, only because there has been a history where images have been altered on Commons. (On another hand, if you know of a way to link an image with a specific revision on Commons, that would completely resolve this rare problem.) - Amgine | t 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to your first point, as I've previously noted, there may be a few limited instances where the article relies upon the inclusion of images. I'd also suggest that your comparison with other news websites in an attempt to justify our use of unfree images is flawed. Wikinews isn't just another news website, it has the unique feature of trying to be freely available. Therefore we can't simply copy the format other news websites use without this feature, we've got to appreciate that the restrictions this puts on us means that we won't always be able to include an image.
I don't think the archiving policy overrides the requirement to limit our use of unfree content. In fact this surely can't be the case, our website is primary goal is to provide free content, providing historical archived articles is secondary to this. The Board's resolution doesn't apply to "newly uploaded" media as you suggest, it applies to all.
I'm not sure how your final point is particularly relevant to a discussion on whether we should (or even can) allow GOL material. Adambro (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My first point was that images are an element of a news story, not sunderable, any more than a quote or backgrounder sentence, and this appears to be something you are not able to accept. Future stories do take into account the licensing strictures where possible, but the archives cannot. And, since the archives are fundamental to Wikinews and its creation, they take precendence over an essentially forward-focused board resolution.
Your second point is in error. If the only purpose was to produce the content we would simply be updating the news templates on Wikipedia. There is no point, none, to Wikinews without the archives. In any logical examination of Wikinews the archives are, in fact, the *primary* purpose to the project; to be a repository of news articles, some of which happen to be current. - Amgine | t 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<unindent> I would have to strongly disagree with your assertion that archiving should not override use of unfree content. I, to be blunt, think if half the effort was put into creating rationales that is put into deleting images we would not have this conflict continually rearing its ugly head on the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do we write a rationale for GOL images then, many of which I suspect can't really be claimed to be fair use. Adambro (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe Brianmc's comment on DR addresses this specific question. - Amgine | t 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from the page edit

I moved this from the policy page to the talk page. It should not be on the main policy page yet, which has "official policy" at the top, until it is approved by the community to be added. It is confusing to have both "official policy" and "proposed policy" tags on a page. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image editing edit

{{Proposed policy}}

Images on Wikinews may sometimes be edited. Ideally, this should be done only when:

  • there is a genuine need for the alteration
  • it doesn't alter anything of substance to the news event
  • alterations should be noted and described on the image description page
  • unaltered images should be available to readers

question on gol edit

I didn't read the entire thing on GOL above because its long and scary, but as it stands, I do not think we should allow new GOL images, as they are in violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy, and the spirit of our image policy (and just quite confusing when cc-by-nc-nd is essentially a deletion template, but yet we allow unofficial permissions much more restrictive). GOL images, if we are granted GOL licenses, the grant of license should be such that the license is considered free (as in freedom, as in Definition of free cultural works free). Otherwise our other image policies and what we actually do on a day to day basis contradicts the GOL section of this policy. (Note: I'm not proposing anything retroactive, as thats just a can of worms i don't really want to touch). Bawolff 06:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is time to review (in a debate) the way this policy has been used over the years. Then, we may want to tweak its intent or wording, and merge it with Wikinews:Fair use to avoid confusion for readers. Otherwise we appear to have 2 contradictory policies, when we actually intend them to be complementary.
I think I will be able to make a case for a very small number of non-publicity GOL to be used for news, within the spirit of the Board Resolution.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the project page "Image use policy".