Talk:Press release/Archives/2012

Copyright status of press releases

What is the copyright status of press releases. Are they in the public domain, by definition? Christiaan

A few people on Wikinews are adament that they're copyrighted (at least under U.S. law) but here're a few quotes I found on Google that say otherwise:

• "Once that press release or PSA is sent out, you cannot take it out of circulation, and you can't control its use. It has been publicly distributed, and it is probably public domain under the copyright law. Anyone who has it can use it for any purpose." (D.R. Yale and A.J. Carothers, The publicity handbook : the inside scoop from more than 100 journalists and PR pros on how to get great publicity coverage : in print, online, and on the air, Chicago, Ill.: NTC Business Books, 2001, p. 66.) [1]

• "Companies (and indeed organizations generally) produce many documents. Some of these are in the public domain, such as annual reports, mission statements, press releases, advertisements, and public relations material in printed form or on the World Wide Web." (A. Bryman, Social research methods, Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 376.) [2]

• "information that has always been in the public domain but was previously inaccessible to most people - because it was held in some special place, or released only to specialists. Press releases, for instance, once landed only on the desks of journalists. Now anybody can read press releases on a company's Web site." (F. Cairncross, The death of distance : how the communications revolution is changing our lives, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001, p. 80.) [3]

Christiaan 08:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMO, releasing a press release is giving implicit permission to re-use the material, whether or not it officially counts as PD. —Morven 08:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

True, but permission to re-use it does not necessarily make it PD, nor necessarily compatible with the GFDL. Angela. 09:02, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. A press release is probably closer to a distribute-but-do-not-modify license. →Raul654 09:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree there. Press releases are given out in the hope that lazy journalists will use them to base an article on, thus giving the company's spin. Rarely are they printed unchanged, but the expectation is that journalists / editors in search of copy will crib sentences, quotes, paragraphs from them.

There is definitely NOT a do-not-modify prohibition. Of course, this still doesn't necessarily mean we can use it under GFDL, but it's wrong to say that issuers of press releases don't expect their work to be reused in modified form. —Morven 09:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

True, but I guarentee if you added started inverting sentences (Company ABC is based in Capital City -> Company ABC is not based in Capital City, etc) you'll be sued. So you are not totally free to modify them. Which means it is not GFDL compatible. →Raul654 09:31, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure they'd have a legal leg to stand on, though.

Practically speaking, I don't see why we should want to use press releases. They're normally trite, deceptive, badly written, puff pieces. We can definitely quote them as we can quote any other source, but we shouldn't use them as is, even on Wikinews. —Morven 09:49, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

In strict terms I would see press releases as covered by copyright, but not the information in them. They are theoretically issued to inform, but in some cases to spin an air of truth into misinformation. When you use them as is, and in their words you are likely helping to propagate their spin. That result is sure to outweigh their losses arising from copyright infringement. I would be surprised to see any cases on this. Eclecticology 10:26, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Can people have a hunt around for opinions from lawyers and other sources to cite? Are there any historical cases in law with regard to press release copyright? It'd be nice to introduce a comprehensive paragraph into the article on this topic. Christiaan 13:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can not speak to US or European law, but in Canada copyright protection is automatic unless a license (such as GFDL) is specificly granted or unless it falls into the public domain. That is, the copyright subsists in the original creative work the second that it is created. The fact that a creative work is used primarily (or even exclusively) for commercial purposes does not negate this principle. However, as a practical matter no company sues over the subsequent copying, modification, and re-use of commercial communications material unless, either, the modification is slanderous, or the reuse is profiting others. mydogategodshat 05:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that even if press releases are public domain or "free to use for any purpose" they are rarely labelled as even "press releases." We see them, we know that was their intention, but without clear indication that it is a press release, it can't be used anyway. There is some talk about this at my talk page if you would like to see it. Foofy 20:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

from what i have learned in the short time of working within a media office, the fact that you submit a statement or news release for public distribution, providing information that the public is seeking or is interested in having, the right to exclusivity is waived. a press release can be taken word-for-word by any media outlet, reprinted in their publication (or rebroadcasted in the case of TV media) but it CANNOT be changed to amend what was stated or the data that was provided. press releases basically serve as a mass interview for media outlets, the latters can quote verbatim as if they did a personal interview to obtain the information. --HatchetFaceBuick 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Press releases are in the public domain, as Christiaan indicates. You still have to give proper attribution, of course. You can amend the text, as long as you indicate that it's no longer the original version. Newspapers do it all the time. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Press release photos

I'd also like a professional opinion of the GFDL compatibility of promotional photos sent out with press releases. I believe they are at least fair use, but a full legal rationale would be useful to add to Category:Promotional photos and related pages. Catherine\^talk 07:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's the current text of {{promophoto}}:

This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph. It is believed that the use of some such photographs to illustrate:

• the person(s), product, event, or subject in question
• in the absence of a free alternative,
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license. As well, commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights, if the photograph is of a person.

To the uploader: This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. Please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the image, the photographer, and copyright information. Additionally, if the copyright holder has granted permission, please provide further details as to the terms.

-30-?

I've often wondered why news releases often end in "-30-". Is there some significance to the number 30? -Oddtoddnm

I work in a Media Office but have little experience actually producing press releases. All the releases I have seen actually end with -###- I have never seen the -30- or -XXX- before. does anyone know why the switch from the 30 to the #s? --HatchetFaceBuick 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Earlier the news releases ended with -XXX- which means 30 in the Roman numerals. That's why -30- was also used to indicate the end of the release. --Arun Agrawal 10:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But why the 30 or the XXX? Why not 20 or XX? I'm also seeing some copy just having "-end-" at the bottom. Ss1013 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)ss1013

Three Xs is a bit more visually pleasing, I guess. -- Zanimum 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my PR profs mentioned that the "-30-" was a telegraph code to indicate the end of the release. However, she didn't offer any evidence to support this and I have not found any on the Internet. On Morse Code sites, the codes for 'end transmission' and 'end of message' are completely different than "-30-". It's an intriguing suggestion, though. Twinchester 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed section: Writing a News Release

"What Wikipedia is not" says: ... Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and recipes, hence I have removed the section "Writing a News Release". --Ezeu 01:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The article could really use a link to such information. Somegeek 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because then we'd have to link to What Wikipedia is not in the articles about treehouses, hernias, and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Wikibooks is a great place for this content, though. -- Zanimum 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PD

Press Releases are not in the public domain. They are in fact covered under the same copyright laws as any other work.

Here's the kicker -- it's not enforced. You're not going to find any company turning down any news organization from posting their press release.

Also -- when a company uses a newswire to distribute their press release, many newswire take ownership and provide their own license for use, which is usually *very* loose.

The truth is, most journalists don't post press releases in their original form. That's widely considered bad journalism; you'll never find a PR in the New York Times.

The Public Relations Glossary at learnpr.com defines press release as "a paper or electronic document submitted to the media with the intent of gaining media coverage." I think it could be argued that there is a time-honered implied license for the media to use the contents of a press release in any way they wish. It would be interesting to get a copyright attorney's opinion on this. Press releases are particularly useful for Wikipedia editors because they provide an attributable source for mundane facts, such as a new CEO's bio, or a new product's specifications.--agr 01:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Origins Section Needs Work

In this article about News Releases, the "Origins" section has only a sentence or two and they are only about where -30- came from. It is NOT about the origins of press releases. So I am suggesting someone in the know consider improving the Origins section, the Origins title, whatever. Thanks. --SafeLibraries 06:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've just added to the origins section. I wasn't sure how to cite the source, but here's the URL is someone would be so kind. - http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/lee.html While it's not specifically referred to as a press release, it's in the section regarding the Pennsylvania railroad incident in 1906. It's reasonably common knowledge in the PR industry that Lee was the originator of the press release, although I've seen incorrect dates spouted. 1906 is easily verifiable, since it's the specific year of the accident the release was a result of. There are other sources, such as interviews published with PR professionals, but I simply felt this was the most reputable source available for posting. ~ Jenn

Press Releases, due to the fact they announce news are also another form of advertising and marketing. Due to the increase of businesses online and the increase in press release submission websites online, they are another method of indirectly promoting, whether negatively or postiively, a business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowflys (talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

In the opening paragraph, the sentence "Commercial press-release distribution services such as Business Wire and PR Newswire are also used to distribute news releases." has been frequently replaced by "Commercial press-release distribution services such as [http://www.eworldwire.com Eworldwire] are also used to distribute news releases." These edits have been performed starting 20:49 20 May 2007 and were performed by the users User:75.209.158.142, User:75.211.34.88, User:75.194.193.238 (twice), and User:68.236.220.129, whose contributions are exclusively on this page, of this nature.

These edits were reverted by User:Barnabypage, User:Corvus_cornix, and me. Since the first step of edit-conflict resolution on WP:CR is to discuss, I am doing so. I ask those users who are attempting this change to come forward with support for their actions. Otherwise, I will request that this page be semi-protected. --RealGrouchy 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

One way around the impasse would be to give NO examples of distribution services, of course. I can see there might be an argument that we're giving undue prominence to PR Newswire and Business Wire; but if they're to be replaced by a DIFFERENT example, I don't think Eworldwire is it. Barnabypage 13:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest not mentioning specific examples to avoid the impression of bias altogether. In Canada, I don't know anyone who uses PR Newswire or Business Wire. We tend to rely on Canada Newswire. I'm sure other countries around the world have their own preferences, as well. More importantly, if the examples are meant to help clarify what a newswire service does, I think they fail miserably for anyone not in the industry. They only serve to promote those specific services. Twinchester 17:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's leave them out. Good point regarding territorial differences - there are probably differences from sector to sector, too, so one person's best-known service won't be the next person's. Barnabypage 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all such examples, they really don't enhance the article at all. The only ways to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid promoting one or more businesses would be either the inclusion of every press release agency in the world, or none. The latter is obviously the only feasible option. --§Pumpmeup 07:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we add a section for press release distribution services? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.24.21 (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Please read the official policies WP:LINKSPAM and WP:LINKS. --§Pumpmeup 06:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian

User:75.198.37.84 has suggested that Pressemelding is not the correct Norwegian term for press release. Googling certainly seems to suggest that it is, but as I don't speak the language I won't restore it without confirmation. Can anyone who either speaks Norwegian or has an appropriate reference to hand shed light on this? Barnabypage 13:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Google is not an authoritative source but a search engine and you shoould not believe everything you read there. Do you really need me to tell you that? 75.192.225.62

Please (a) drop the ad-hominem attitude, (b) tell us the Norwegian for 'press release' if you know it (or even better put it in the appropriate place in the article), (c) read the discussion above in which it was agreed that we wouldn't mention any specific examples of press-release distribution services, and (d) contribute to that discussion before restoring eworldwire or any other to the article. Barnabypage 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple terms

I would say that news release, media release, and press release are effectively synonymous and we are misleading users of Wikipedia by drawing distinctions among them. (I agree that a press statement is subtly different.) Does anyone have any strong views, opposing or concurring, on this before I make the necessary edits? Barnabypage (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

References

I pulled the entire contents of the References section:

• Viren Tom. News release. How to write a press release. Retrieved October 16, 2008.
• Hughes T., media release. What is a Media Release? Retrieved October 16, 2008.
• "Press release" as defined in a glossary.
• Encarta World English Dictionary (North American Edition). 2007.

None was actually used as a reference, as none was specifically referred to in the text. It's not clear that any are appropriate references in any case; one is just a dictionary definition from Encarta, and one is a dicdef from a glossary of terms somewhere, and one is a random piece from Wikihow.

Let's try limiting ourselves to references to which we actually refer, shall we? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Commercial

The last sentence of the first paragraph read "Commercial press-release distribution services are also used to distribute them". Leaves out an entire new segment of "Free" press release disrribution services that have taken a foot hold over the past 5 years.

Starting around 2005 a large number of free press release distribution services began publishing press releases online. Since then sites like PRlog.org, PR.com, 1888pressrelease.com, PR-Inside.com and BigNews.biz have traffic and a user base that are on par with and in some cases exceed the commercial "pay for service" distribution sites such as PR Newswire, Business Wire, PRWeb and Canada Newswire.

I would suggest changing that sentence to read "Online Press release distribution services are often used to distribute them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erthlng (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree except I would call it "Internet Press Release Website Submission services and would add this list to help webmasters and visitors both view and use them as a reference. Internet Press Release Website Submission List[4] Snowflys (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet

I think we can add an internet section that talks about free or open source resources that can be used for press release distribution and publishing. Wiki1985contribute (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Because unlike traditional publishing, it is now easy to publish and distribute press release on internet without any cost. So I think a section on internet based press release distribution and publishing can be added. Also there are thousands of journalists and users subscribed to internet based press release distribution services. Wiki1985contribute (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Internet and social media heavily influence press release distribution. Can a new article on internet based news and press release distribution be introduced from the "Internet" section of the article? Wiki1985contribute (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Not having information on the #1 way people distribute press releases (Websites) is a big oversight. People don't fax or mail them anymore, as this article indicates. So, I added a paragraph about that. A user completely deleted the entire thing, because I included a couple examples, but I reversed it, because this paragraph makes the page stronger. I assume in good faith the person was not vandalizing the page, but I need to see how it plays out. We need to make sure the page moves forward and is more accurate and useful, not backward and less accurate and useful. --Adam00 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Press releases can be unreliable, and often are

Although the lead mentions their use as a tool in Public Relations, I think the article can be improved by explicitly stating that press releases are often not reliable sources of controversial/editorial information. A quick search of wikipedia using "WP:press release POV" brings up several listings at RS/N etc, e.g. archive19: "it falls under the WP:SPS portion of WP:V--it may be used to establish non-controversial facts about the subject but not establish notability or make claims about other subjects". I'm not sure how to incorporate this yet, whether a separate section or within existing one, so I thought to ask here first. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that was already obvious from the article, to be honest. Remember its purpose is to tell the reader about the general topic of press releases, not to get into the arcana of what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. Readers can make their own judgements on what is and isn't reliable in the real world. Barnabypage (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Official Statements from a Government agency

What do official statements qualify as? I'd like to start a new Wikipedia article on this subject, any ideas? Jardycoho (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They can be issued in the form of press releases, though they aren't always. Is there much specific to say on the subject? Barnabypage (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)