Talk:First photo of a planet that orbits another sun

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


A story about a photo without the photo?=[edit]

This story is almost {{notnews}} without the photo, but at least there is a link to the press release so we can see it on the ESO site (until they pull it).

Since the ESO bastards won't even release one lousy photo into the public domain so we can permanently see what the damn thing looks like, I'll wait for NASA to release their own photo and then publish another story that gives credit where its due.

It's a shame that ESO is more interested in protecting their "intellectual property rights" than sharing their discovery with the world. — DV 21:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All the credit remains with the ESA. While not releasing their photos into the PD is short-sighted, they are still sharing their discovery freely on their website. Dan100 (Talk) 22:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the European Space Agency (ESA)?
This discovery appears to have originated from the European Southern Observatory (ESO).
Your idea of "freely" is rather odd - sharing freely means allowing others to publish as well. ESO is claiming copyright on their little photo and has not freely shared anything.
I'm sure NASA or some other American government-run installation will get around to photographing the same thing and freely share the imagery with the world, leaving ESO on the margins for their short-sighted policy.
Of course, our own short-sighted policy against fair-use photos is partly to blame for this situation - other news agencies will have no qualms about re-publishing this photo. — DV 22:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You never seen a typo before?
And I meant free as in free beer. Dan100 (Talk) 22:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= E-mails about the photo[edit]

Dear Amgine and Douglas,

Thank you for your request and your interest in ESO's results.
We appreciate very much Wikinews and the whole Wikimedia project.

However, at this stage, it is not possible for ESO to provide images that satisfy the Wikimedia Commons.

You may wish either  to link to the image on our web site or to request an image satisfying your licence to either the CNRS or to the
authors - see the contacts in the press release.

Kind regards,

The ESO Public Affairs Dept.

 Email     = [removed]
       Subject   = Request use of image for Wikinews article
     Message   = Hello,

 A Wikinews article ( has
 been written today on the ESO photograph that has been confirmed to be an extrasolar planet.  I would
 like to request permission from you to upload this file
 ( to Wikimedia Commons.

 Wikinews ( would like to use ESO images in
 articles about ESO accomplishements (such as
 however our image hosting system does not allow use of restricted
 licensed images like the one used by the ESO. Would it be possible to
 ask that some images be dual-licensed as CC-by or GFDL? Specifically
 for the current lead article, could the image at
 be licensed in this format?

 Thank you,


Wow. That's pretty discouraging. ESO is willing to give Wikinews permission to use the photograph but we can't accept their permission because of the policies on Commons?
The mindless obedience to "everything must be free" that has infected this site is hurting our ability to work as citizen journalists.
If it comes down to it, I will choose to support citizen journalism over "everything must be free".
Does anyone else see the folly in rejecting this photograph? — DV 03:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
At least someone tried. I appreciate the effort on Amgine's and Douglas's part. This situation with scientific photo's and the inability of our use of most of them have reduced my output to Wikinews. I'm not abandoning contributions but until this image use thing is worked out (in our favor) I'm just not going to write the stuff if I can't present and illustrate an article properly.
vlsimpson 04:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The BBC publishes the photo[edit]

Here is a link:

We continue to shoot ourselves in the foot by prohibiting fair-use images.

The photo isn't even credited to ESO in the caption, for cryin' out loud. — DV 22:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The BBC will have paid cash for that pic, and there's a reason why. If we just nick it and republish it we'll be violating copyright - we can't claim fair use for such things. Dan100 (Talk) 22:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Really? What basis do you have for the assertion that the BBC paid for the photo? Do you work there? Good for the BBC if that is true.
Did the Associated Press pay cash for their usage as well?
The hundreds of other news outlets which are covering this story have not all tracked down the administrator of the ESO (on a weekend) to pay cash for permission to use this image. Besides, I think you've pulled the assertion that the BBC paid for this photo out of the air - given that it's the weekend and there was probabbly not even a way to conduct such a transaction.
But that's neither here nor there. Do you seriously propose that there is no "fair use" of copyrighted images? — DV 22:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Dan that BBC and big publishers usually pay for licensed works. Because they get the same in return. But the law itself doesn't always demand it. News is protected under fair use and fair dealings, at least where I have looked it up. Since we already give all our material away as pd, we have no incentive to tit-for-tat scratch-my-back behaviour with other publishers.
Since we are a news site, we are protected for use of anything needed to tell the news. The photo is the news, fair use would be to use it. It's only a few hundred pixels in size. The valuable version is the full size version, which noone would want popping up in a news story — it's probably in the tens or hundreds of MB. They can still make plenty of money selling this version to books and other high resolution media for years to come. There is never going to be a 'second' first photo of a distant planet. - Simeon 07:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
DV, they buy their photos off an image bureau or a news supplier who deals in photos, eg in this case AP. AP pay the ESO for rights, then news outlets pay AP for the image. Here's a link to AP Photo Services. Dan100 (Talk) 09:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Regards fair use, it's just too ambigous. When I read about it, I come to conclusion that we can't claim fair use - we would simply be infringing the copy-right. Wikimedia can't take those kinds of risks, so we'll probably be using the Commons for some time yet. I don't see that as too big a deal - they often have some quite decent pictures over there. Dan100 (Talk) 09:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Dan, if you seriously think that everyone licenses all imagery that is printed or goes out over the air, you are woefully misinformed as to how the news business really works. I am quite familiar with the many news and stock photo services that are available (especially AP), so please spare me your little tutorial on the subject.
Back to Wikinews, your claim that Wikinews has no fair use rights simply isn't credible. I'll assume that your comments are addressed specifically to this photo, which ESO has not released into the public domain. I saw that some news orgs were using the photo via a wire service, but I'm skeptical that all parties which obtained the photo directly from ESO negotiated a fee with them. Perhaps some news organizations have a standing agreement with ESO for such images. It's more likely that ESO waived their copyright for non-commercial, editorial use. I see this kind of waiver all the time. Unfortunately, Commons prohibits even "editorial use only" terms, so I won't argue this specific case as its a moot point.
If Commons made a provision for editorial vs commercial use of photos, it might help us work towards a solution on the separate issue of "fair use" images. It would be awesome if Wikinews could sign up with a wire service to obtain photos for editorial use - but again, that would require different terms than are permitted on Commons.
Looking forward, I hope you'll agree that we have fair-use rights for business logos in our financial reporting, that we have fair-use rights for brand name packaging when there are product recalls, and fair-use rights for screenshots for software-related stories. Thousands of other news organizations routinely use such imagery without paying anyone a cent. Why should we be any different?
Rather than arguing over your limited knowledge on this subject, I'll point out that I have suggested in the past that Eloquence or someone at Wikimedia needs to obtain qualified legal opinions that can address this issue in a broader context. I'm patiently waiting for that opinion, but time is running out. The implications of not having any fair-use rights are severe. For example, the Wikinews TV broadcast is not really viable without such rights.
By the way, I have probably spent more time than anyone else on Wikinews on the Commons. To claim that the small, uneven selection of "file images" on Commons is adequate for Wikinews' needs as an aspiring news organization is just silly on its face.
If there is any issue that is likely to cause a fork of Wikinews, it is this issue of not having access to the various types of fair-use imagery that thousands of other news organizations around the world use to create their daily reports.
I sincerely hope you are the only one who feels that the selection on the Commons is adequate. — DV 11:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)