Are news websites 2nd party?

This is mostly about 4gamer.net. Last year I mass tagged posts sourced from 4gamer with third-party source because they're a Japanese video game website related to game companies, not artists, and without a tag, it looks like the sources of the posts are a first-party game or artist website. 4gamer is the most famous but not the only Japanese website that receives and shares info and illustrations from companies to promote their games. However, news websites in general can often offer higher quality images and even images that haven't been shared by the actual games' websites or social media. 4gamer especially is a highly trustful source, but tagging it with third-party could carry a bad connotation.

I corrected all the bad links, prompting me to doubt my past edits and undo everything. Looking back, what I did was pure vandalism, I should've asked people before mass tagging third-party. There are a few dozen posts left tagged third and second party that I didn't touch, while almost a thousand posts have no tags. What should be the standard for 4gamer and similar sites?

I don't think the usage was entirely wrong. Sites like 4gamer aren't generally the first-party source because they didn't create the art, nor the second-party source because they paid for the art's creation and distributed it. Aside from receiving the materials to share in an official capacity, they are entirely disconnected from the creation process, which makes them a third party. Most journalist websites, gaming or otherwise, rely on using images which they didn't make or commission the making-of; think of something like Variety using professionally-shot pictures of actors paid for by the agencies representing them, or CNN using photos shot by a war journalist published by the NGO they work for.

Third-party may have negative connotations when it comes to the spread of images online, but it is the only thing which makes sense here, and we shouldn't let connotations change that. They'd definitely consider themselves third-party too.

Damian0358 said:

I don't think the usage was entirely wrong. Sites like 4gamer aren't generally the first-party source because they didn't create the art, nor the second-party source because they paid for the art's creation and distributed it. Aside from receiving the materials to share in an official capacity, they are entirely disconnected from the creation process, which makes them a third party. Most journalist websites, gaming or otherwise, rely on using images which they didn't make or commission the making-of; think of something like Variety using professionally-shot pictures of actors paid for by the agencies representing them, or CNN using photos shot by a war journalist published by the NGO they work for.

Third-party may have negative connotations when it comes to the spread of images online, but it is the only thing which makes sense here, and we shouldn't let connotations change that. They'd definitely consider themselves third-party too.

Second-party source isn't just for art posted by the person that paid for it, it's for anyone other than the artist who was given permission to post it. No where is it said in the tag's wiki that it's necessary to have been involved in the creation process. If they were given official permission to post it, then they're second party. Third-party source is for art sourced from someone with zero connection to the artist whatsoever, with no permission to (re)post it having been given by anyone with the right to give it.

blindVigil said:

Third-party source is for art sourced from someone with zero connection to the artist whatsoever, with no permission to (re)post it having been given by anyone with the right to give it.

But the focus on first/second/third-party sources is on the artist first and foremost though, generally speaking. Third-party source has no clause on whether or not the source in question had no permission to share the assets from the original creator or those who commissioned them for the work.

I can't say whether news websites are a second party or a third party technically, but I really don't want them to be treated the same as unofficial reposters such as fan wikis, imageboards, boorus, and so on, because unlike those, news websites use the images directly provided to them by companies.

I agree with blindVigil. I usually tag news sites as second-party source, because you need to have direct contact with the company to receive the materials, that's an official source. Compare to third-party sources that got their materials from a published first/second-party source. I don't think being the one that paid for the art or not matters.