Newsvine Photographers 'Code of Honor/Charter' Development Article

How would you define "about photography"?

wouldn't that cover things like [choosing] the subject, why the subject was chosen, how the lighting affects etc.

This won't be a requirement for publishing to the group. It's not always appropriate and we want to avoid determining and making exceptions. The audience should be provided with information that they would want, who simply want context, not f-stops, lighting, etc.

This is the perfect use for the group discussion feature. Putting photo specs into a separate conversation better organizes the information, makes for a quick reference and hopefully would open up deeper photography discussions.

If anyone doesn't know what group discussions are. Look above the first comment and you should see tabs for every group this article is published to. The number represents how many comments there are. All you need to do is click and post your comment.

Anyway, just how much group information are you looking for in context with the consitution thing?

As much as is needed. Eventually, I'd like to create a quick reference article that details participation guidelines, gives advice on copyright, Newsvine functions, etc.

Allowing members to post material they don't own is a slippery slope. Everything has its exceptions but there needs to be a valid reason for making them, which is why we're having this discussion, and they need to be detailed before being allowed.

This is what I can detail, if anyone can think of anything else, please add, keep 'er simple:

As it stands now, it's okay to include other people's photographs as long as at least one of them is your own, rottlady's Jewel, KS articles are a good example of this and historical photo essays in general too.

Some articles can be photograph-less, meta-group articles, such as this are one. How-to articles and equipment advice might be another, depending on content.

Posting on Newsvine automatically gives you an 'all rights reserved' copyright but that doesn't stop anyone from doing a right click and save as, and there are ways around websites blocking image downloads, no where is safe.

Like jobs said, posting smaller versions on the web is a good defense, so is watermarking.

If you don't mind people editing/redistributing certain photographs, you need to specify, otherwise 'all rights reserved' is in effect. You can visit the Creative Commons website for more information.

Politics/religion is a tricky one and something the admins discussed, this is what I said when asked:

If someone were to constantly published, for example, sexually charged articles, I would ask them to defend the practice, the action taken depending on the answer, ignoring the request would result in the trash can being clicked. One trick pony-ism (topic, not subject) reeks of being disingenuous to me, that's not what we're about.

Political and religious articles, there's a fine line. I think they're acceptable if someone took their camera to a political rally, etc, or went to photograph their local church and talked about their beliefs or whatever. It's doubtful that the flame-baiters would put this kind of effort into their articles, but just in case, failure to properly moderate should result in article removal, and continued failure should result in group removal, and again, the one trick pony-ism applies here.

It also should be added that photographs should be related to the content of the article in some way.

We can certainly pull together some information for image manipulation programs.

I forgot how raw this article was, it needs some work. Thanks for coming by and reading. :)

I am still learning

We all are.