Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2017/December

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


NSFW/PAL/Explicit content

(Suitable for policy intersection proposal) Though Wikinews is not censored, I don't think there is a problem having a "not safe for work" tag for media which contains obscene material, foul language, or things of similar kind. Considering the "Video of Pricasso painting the Jimmy Wales portrait" linked in the external link section of Wikinews interviews painter Pricasso on his art and freedom of expression, which I saw at the age of seventeen, it is best to notify the readers about it before-hand. They might save themselves from embarrassing situations if someone sees them watching it.
•–• 22:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What constitutes obscenity varies between cultures. --Pi zero (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
by any definition, a meat spin is obscene.
223.237.211.140 (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Usage of non-free media for ComicCon articles

NOTE: "free media" includes all Creative Commons license (NC, ND, etc.)

Cosplay is not consent -- whenever we take photos of people in a Comic Con or fan expo, we are supposed to tell them their photos might be published on XYZ news org. However, there is a question about personality rights. Taking permission to photograph and using on a news org is not sufficient condition since they are not told about the license we would use to release their photos. Ethically, we should make sure personality rights are not violated and hence I used a ND license for the photos I took at 2017 Bangalore ComicCon. However, there can be a problem. ND license does not limit reuse, their photos can be reused, even for commercial purposes. This violates personality rights -- if we did not inform them about it. I was accompanied with my cousin, and we had informed the cosplayers that we would use it for Wikinews and can be reused by anyone for any purpose but without modification.

But do you really think a cosplayer can possible understand [the complications, their rights, licensing conditions...etc.] in the 10-15 seconds consent? I know Wikinews content should allow reuse and all that project mission. But the primary focus of Wikinews is to provide free news. It may be redistributed, which we can not control [some articles are redistributed, some are not], but that is not the primary focus. And as a news org, we must not violate an individual's rights.

So, it is definitely not sufficient to ask, "May I take your photo? But please note that it might be published on Wikinews. Hm?" They would not think about other places their photos can be used, for the unspecified reasons. Of course we can specify how the images can be used while taking the permission, but doing it alone for 300 photos -- there will be at least one person would would not have understood it -- remember that not everyone is aware of their rights, what happens on internet, how disasterous the license can be...

TL;DR what about the situation: you allow a photographer to use your photo on XYZ news site, but you later find the same photo on PornHub, and they are making money out of it, violating your rights? Now think about being that photographer and now facing legal battle.

Just informing people about how it will be used is not sufficient. Considering the ethics, we must make sure they understand what it means.

So what are the thoughts about allowing non-free media for Comic Con and Fan Expos?

note: I asked every single person for their consent, and current license is with respect to what they have agreed for.

Of course one should read the TnC before hitting "I agree", but journalists are not websites. Ethics kicks in and we should not only inform, but also ensure they understand the terms before saying "yes".

PS: I also noticed media reporters taking photos without permission.


•–• 08:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

NSFW/PAL/Explicit content

(Suitable for policy intersection proposal) Though Wikinews is not censored, I don't think there is a problem having a "not safe for work" tag for media which contains obscene material, foul language, or things of similar kind. Considering the "Video of Pricasso painting the Jimmy Wales portrait" linked in the external link section of Wikinews interviews painter Pricasso on his art and freedom of expression, which I saw at the age of seventeen, it is best to notify the readers about it before-hand. They might save themselves from embarrassing situations if someone sees them watching it.
•–• 22:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What constitutes obscenity varies between cultures. --Pi zero (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
by any definition, a meat spin is obscene.
223.237.211.140 (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Usage of non-free media for ComicCon articles

NOTE: "free media" includes all Creative Commons license (NC, ND, etc.)

Cosplay is not consent -- whenever we take photos of people in a Comic Con or fan expo, we are supposed to tell them their photos might be published on XYZ news org. However, there is a question about personality rights. Taking permission to photograph and using on a news org is not sufficient condition since they are not told about the license we would use to release their photos. Ethically, we should make sure personality rights are not violated and hence I used a ND license for the photos I took at 2017 Bangalore ComicCon. However, there can be a problem. ND license does not limit reuse, their photos can be reused, even for commercial purposes. This violates personality rights -- if we did not inform them about it. I was accompanied with my cousin, and we had informed the cosplayers that we would use it for Wikinews and can be reused by anyone for any purpose but without modification.

But do you really think a cosplayer can possible understand [the complications, their rights, licensing conditions...etc.] in the 10-15 seconds consent? I know Wikinews content should allow reuse and all that project mission. But the primary focus of Wikinews is to provide free news. It may be redistributed, which we can not control [some articles are redistributed, some are not], but that is not the primary focus. And as a news org, we must not violate an individual's rights.

So, it is definitely not sufficient to ask, "May I take your photo? But please note that it might be published on Wikinews. Hm?" They would not think about other places their photos can be used, for the unspecified reasons. Of course we can specify how the images can be used while taking the permission, but doing it alone for 300 photos -- there will be at least one person would would not have understood it -- remember that not everyone is aware of their rights, what happens on internet, how disasterous the license can be...

TL;DR what about the situation: you allow a photographer to use your photo on XYZ news site, but you later find the same photo on PornHub, and they are making money out of it, violating your rights? Now think about being that photographer and now facing legal battle.

Just informing people about how it will be used is not sufficient. Considering the ethics, we must make sure they understand what it means.

So what are the thoughts about allowing non-free media for Comic Con and Fan Expos?

note: I asked every single person for their consent, and current license is with respect to what they have agreed for.

Of course one should read the TnC before hitting "I agree", but journalists are not websites. Ethics kicks in and we should not only inform, but also ensure they understand the terms before saying "yes".

PS: I also noticed media reporters taking photos without permission.


•–• 08:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)