Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2019/August

Interviewees' awareness of the CC-BY license

I've been thinking. Have interviewees been aware that their responses would be published under CC-BY and would be reused commercially? If so, would the interviewees be concerned about how their responses would be used? If not, must interviewees be told about it? Must they be concerned about the way their responses to questions would be derived into other works? --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I am certainly no copyright lawyer, but it would seem to me when one gives an interview, it becomes the intellectual property of the interviewer. The interviewer is free to do with it as they see fit. They could release it commercially themselves, they could sell it to another outlet, they could even release it as public domain. I do not see any circumstance where Wikinews would need to give any special disclosure about our CC BY 2.5 license to interviewees. --SVTCobra 17:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

According to the articles (#1, #2) and one book, the copyright of an interview may belong to either an interviewer, an interviewee, or both. Even one university provides some release form about its own interviews just to avoid complications. --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Interviewees are told where the interview is headed as a matter of journalistic ethics. --Pi zero (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

After reading those two items, it would seem the interview is always the property of the interviewer (or sometimes both, which means either could publish it). The only situation in which a court could find an interviewee had sole rights, would be if there was an agreement the interviewee would own it (usually an interview-for-hire) or if the interviewee's right of publicity was violated (underhandedly using a part of the interview as a product endorsement in advertising, for example) or pretending the conversation is not an interview. In other words, I don't think we have anything to worry about. --SVTCobra 19:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Either way, it is an issue which has nothing to do with CC-BY as such. --SVTCobra 20:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if this is what they teach at journalism school.

So by telling the interviewee "This is for Wikinews," we are allowing them to look up Wikinews' licensing practices, and we consider that part of their decision of whether or not to accept the interview? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what they teach in journalism classes, but for your next part: Well, yes, in a way. But the license is irrelevant. Rather they should be concerned with what type of publication it is and its reputation, not the license. Agreeing to an interview is (as I have learned today) an implied "grant of gift" verbally or otherwise. Of course, lawyers always prefer to have everything in writing (and I am sure they'd also like you to consult with them before accepting the next EULA from the latest app you downloaded for your phone). As far as the "shared ownership" George was mentioning, it appears to mean the courts have found the interviewee owns their own words. That is, the interviewer can't sue the interviewee for copyright infringement if they use the exact same words elsewhere (in another interview or in their own works). I appreciate George's inquiry and feel like I learned something today by reading about it, but I see no need to worry or feel any obligation besides stating it is for Wikinews which a project of the Wikimedia Foundation (and if they ask "what's that?" say "the people who also started Wikipedia"). Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, reading the Stanford generic release form, did bring up the notion of minors. If we were to ever interview a child (legal minor) we should get, at a minimum, implied consent by the parent/legal guardian by them being present at the interview. --SVTCobra 23:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)