Commons:Deletion requests/Some third-party images hosted on National Weather Service servers

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Some third-party images hosted on National Weather Service servers|year=2024|month=December|day=25}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Some third-party images hosted on National Weather Service servers|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Some third-party images hosted on National Weather Service servers}} at the end of today's log.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Some third-party images hosted on National Weather Service servers

[edit]

These files are examples of third-party images hosted on the servers of the US National Weather Service (NWS), a US federal government agency whose own works are therefore ineligible for copyright.

The rationale, as expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} tag, that these files are in the PD relies on:

  • the general disclaimer on the NWS website that says that the "information" on NWS websites is "in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" (see A1 below)
  • the fact that for many years, one process by which members of the public could submit images to the NWS used to state that "by submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain." (see A2 below)

However:

  • The NWS has had at least 12 different processes for third-party submissions across different NWS offices across many years. Some of these clearly aimed to release submissions into the public domain, others clearly did not, and in at least one case the aim with regard to the public domain is ambiguous. (see A3 below)
  • We do not and cannot know which of these many different processes (or potentially any other) was used to submit an image, so we cannot know that permission was ever given to put the image in the public domain
  • Moreover, it is dubious that a passive disclaimer stating that submissions automatically enter the public domain is sufficent for a copyright holder to abandon their rights; a position confirmed by the NWS legal team in a recent email. (see A5 below)
  • If a copyright holder did not release their work into the public domain, the absence of a specific notation (per the general disclaimer) does not place it in the public domain. Since there is no legal requirement for such a notation to be made, any such notation is a courtesy anyway, and nothing can be inferred by its absence.
  • Assuming that "information" in the general disclaimer is even intended to apply to images, it does not tell us what might constitute a specific notation.
  • Attributions to third parties, whether private individuals or major government contractor corporations, vary very considerably on weather.gov, even for the same image in different places. Attributions range from incredibly specific and unambiuguous to extremely vague. Given that there are or have been thousands of third-party images on weather.gov pages, submitted over 20 or more years, and handled by over 100 regional offices, this lack of consistency is not surprising, and we can attach no special significance to the fact that one attribution is not formulated the same as another.

Taken together, all of the above amount to significant doubt (per the Precautionary Principle) about the freedom of any third-party file on NWS websites that is not explicitly and proximately notated as being in the public domain or avaiable under a free license.

None of the files in this DR are notated this way, and the only conclusion we can reasonably draw is that we simply don't know what their copyright and licensing status is.

Note: At least five previous DRs for similar files resulted in a "keep" based on the wording of the Sioux Falls' submission terms. These took place before contributors here knew that there were multiple processes with different terms, and treated that process as the process for submissions to weather.gov as a whole. (see A6 below)

Details

A1. Pertinent sections of the general disclaimer on weather.gov website::

"The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise..."

and

"Use of Third-Party Data and Products
Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. This third-party information may contain trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features to identify the source of the information. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products."

A2. The pertinent part of the submission process for third-party images formerly included on a page maintained by the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Forecast Office.

"By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others."

A3. NWS public submission processes found and documented so far:

Office or project Submission Ts & Cs Notes
NWS Chicago, IL "Share your fall foliage, harvest, pumpkin, or fall weather pictures with us! Please post them to our Facebook and/or Twitter page with your permission for us to use them. Thank you!" Submission only gives "us" (NWS Chicago? NWS generally?) permission to use the photos.
NWS Cleveland, OH "You must provide us with permission to re-post and use your photo. You will received credit on anything we post!" (sic) Submission only gives "us" (NWS Cleveland? NWS generally?) permission to use the photos.
NWS Des Moines, IA "If you do send photos, please let us know if you grant permission for us to use them in future spotter talks and outreach presentations." ("What and how to report" tab) Submission only gives "us" (NWS Des Moines? NWS generally?) permission to use the photos in future spotter talks and outreach presentations.
NWS Grand Forks, ND "If you do send photos, please let us know if you grant permission for us to use them in future spotter talks and outreach presentations." ("What and how to report" tab) Submission only gives "us" (NWS Grand Forks? NWS generally?) permission to use the photos in future spotter talks and outreach presentations.
NWS Grand Rapids, MI (missing) "Thank you to everyone who gave us permission to use their photos!" -- the original context is missing, but the acknowledgment here implies that this was a permission to use, not a release into the PD.
(missing) as above
NWS Green Bay, WI "In order for us to use your photo for the Photo Contest and other NWS Green Bay weather graphics, WE NEED WRITTEN PERMISSION from you. Please include a statement with your submission like, “NWS Green Bay may use my photo” or “Permission granted to use photo.” Photos submitted without such a statement will NOT be entered into the contest." Submission only gives NWS Green Bay permission to re-share the contribution, not anybody else (maybe not even any other NWS offices).
NWS La Crosse, WI "Do you have some pictures from the surrounding area that you would like to contribute to our photos page? Email us your digital photos, along with the location and date they were taken (include your name if you'd like it included). We will review them, and if they pass the "test", they will be included. Please note that this is a government site and in the public domain, so no copyright privileges will exist." Images emailed for inclusion on the photos page are unambiguously released into the public domain, but for third-party images that appear elsewhere on NWS La Crosse's site, we can't know whether they were submitted this way or under these terms. The oldest snapshot of this page in the Internet Archive is from 2015.
NWS Lincoln, IL "If you can help up, please paste your photos to our Facebook or Twitter feeds. Make sure they are pictures YOU have taken, and state that you are willing to let us use them." Submission only gives the NWS permission to re-share the contribution, not anybody else.
NWS Louisville, KY (missing) Previously hosted terms and conditions identical to those at the Sioux City office (earliest archive.org snapshot is 2015), but these were subsequently taken down. They do not appear in the 20 September 2022 snapshot
NWS Memphis, TN "By sharing information with us via social media you are giving the NWS permission to share it with the public by re-tweeting or re-sharing the information." Submission only gives the NWS permission to re-share the contribution, not anybody else.
"Submitted images will be made available to use by anyone in the NWS and will be in the Public Domain." but also "Yes/No – is photo credit required with each use?" The requirement to provide a photo credit is incompatible with releasing something into the public domain. If somebody submitted a photo and specified this requirement, it is unclear what the resulting copyright and licence status would be.
NWS Peachtree City, GA "If you have any weather related pictures you would like to share with us, we would be glad to put them on this Web Page and possibly use them in our Spotter Training with the proper credits." Only grants NWS permission to publish images on web and in training material. Implicitly includes a promise of attribution, incompatible with public domain.
NWS Sioux Falls, SD Until August 2024, "By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others." This condition of submission to this office was in place since at least 2022. However, we have no way of knowing whether any specific image published on weather.gov/fsd (let alone to other parts of weather.gov) was submitted under these terms, or whether submitters were necessarily even aware of them.
Lightning Photos "The submitted images can be used by NOAA/NWS or anyone else for lightning safety and related uses." Not a free licence since it does not allow images to be used for any purpose other than lightning safety or related uses.
Rip Current Photos "The submitted images can be used by NOAA/NWS or anyone else for lightning safety and related uses." Not a free licence since it does not allow images to be used for any purpose other than lightning safety or related uses. Apparently just copied from the Lightning Photos page without adjusting the terms and conditions to apply to rip currents.
Sneaker Wave and High Surf Photos "The submitted images can be used by NOAA/NWS or anyone else for lightning safety and related uses." Not a free licence since it does not allow images to be used for any purpose other than lightning safety or related uses. Apparently just copied from the Lightning Photos page without adjusting the terms and conditions to apply to dangerous waves.
Weather Spotter's Field Guide "If you are willing to allow the NWS to use your photo or video in our education and outreach efforts, please state that NWS has permission to reprint when you submit the file to us. If you would like us to credit you on the image, we will gladly do that." Not a free licence since it does not allow images to be used by anyone other than the NWS or for any purpose other than education and outreach.

A4. Excerpt from email from NWS La Crosse to User:Hurricanehink

"... Our belief is that someone can still allow us to use an image on our website, but can still hold their intellectual property rights. You may need to go directly to the individual(s) that contributed imagery for additional permissions...."

A5. Excerpt from email from NWS Sioux Falls to User:Rlandmann

"... Our apologies for the delay in a response, but we wanted to run your question through our legal team before replying. No, not all images credited to members of the general public are in the public domain on weather.gov. In some cases, the credited image creator has only given permission for the National Weather Service to use the image on NOAA websites.
The disclaimer page that you cited in your email was created specifically for a prior photo submission contest and since has been used occasionally when requesting images from the public taken during specific storm events. It is the opinion of the legal team that they "do not believe a disclaimer, alone, can be used to transfer a copyright holder's ownership interest to NOAA or to abandon the copyright interest to the public domain". Since then, we have removed the questionable language on the disclaimer page...."

A6. Previous DRs for similar images, closed as keep and apparently unaware of multiple, parallel processes

DR Closing admin comments
Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg "...per the NWS T&C, it can be reasonably assumed that the photographer understood that his work was going to become PD"
Commons:Deletion requests/File:SD Tornado.jpg "per User:TornadoLGS", who said "Such images have explicitly been released to the public domain by the copyright owner as part of the upload process"
Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020aug-derecho-corn-sunset-Adel-IA.jpg "per NWS provisions" (there were two comments, both to "keep", both citing the submissions process)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:2019 Allen, SD tornado.jpg "per discussion" (there were three comments, all to "keep", the only reason cited was the submissions process)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020aug-derecho-damage-Scranton-Iowa.jpg as above

Rlandmann (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that the bottom one on that list was renominated for deletion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It had originally been closed as keep under the pretext that the policy required a release into the public domain. Which simply isn’t true. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: it was the corn sunset image that I renominated. But it was also closed as keep for the same reason as the above. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Xenia tornado.jpg – The image appears on this NWS webpage. Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." Given this disclaimer, tons of reliable source media outlets use the photograph under a public domain license, even citing NWS or NOAA as the source for the image including: WYSO, Times Gazette, The Cincinnati Enquirer, 3NewsNow, Times of India, TornadoTalk, WKBN, NKY Tribute, Ohio Government (EMA), NBC4i. Then here is the big kicker! The NOAA Photo Library uploaded this photograph to Flickr! In fact, on the NOAA photo library if you search "Fred Stewart", the photographer, the Flickr image shows up, proving it is in the NOAA photo library. This image is free to use, hands down. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur: the Flickr page unambiguously identifies this image as CC-BY. The other noteworthy things here is it's another piece of evidence against the idea that such images on weather.gov are all in the public domain (as the NWS legal team has already said at A5 above). The NOAA hasn't labelled it as such here and has specified that attribution is required. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Xenia picture; delete the others - updating my vote. Since the evidence suggests that the Xenia tornado picture was uploaded to Flickr under a CC-BY license, that qualifies as free content. The other ones I still support deletion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: The Third Party clause of A1 refers, to my reading of the text, not to individuals but companies/organizations which NWS may utilize those resources under license. However, it doesn't negate the disclaimer top line which indicates PD unless marked. How are we to interpret this clause when it explicitly refers to things like trade secrets, registered trade/service marks, etc. and apply to individuals submitting photos? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that everyone can agree that the wording of the general disclaimer leaves a lot to be desired. The presence of this poorly-worded disclaimer demonstrably increases the ambiguity and uncertainty around the copyright and licensing of these files rather than reducing them, which is probably a fail as far as as a disclaimer goes... :)
That said, a third party is a third party, regardless of whether a natural person or a corporate entity. A person giving the NWS permission to use their photo (as discussed in A4 and A5) is licensing the image to the NWS.
The main contention right now is over what "specifically noted otherwise" means.
A narrow interpretation is that these words mean a very explicit notice like "Copyright © Mary Smith". Such notices do occur from time-to-time on NWS pages, but they're very rare.
A broad interpretation is that it means an acknowledgement that the file originated with somebody else, not the NWS. This view is consistent with the "third party" clause, with the NWS's quite explicit advice in A4 and A5, and also what we can observe on weather.gov. For example, take a look at this page, expand the sections on the 1993 and 2008 floods, and look at how major media outlets like Getty and the AP are acknowledged -- not with a full copyright notice, but a simple "Photo by..."
Many years ago, an individual user, User:Runningonbrains, created the {{PD-NWS}} template and enshrined their own, narrow understanding of "specifically noted otherwise" into it. The language that's still there today "Thus, all* images on NWS servers are public domain..." was simply their own invention, and ever since, some people have just assumed that it was correct.
As we just saw, either major media outlets like Getty and the AP who are notoriously aggressive about protecting their copyrights were suddenly uncharacteristically generous in donating photos to the public domain, or User:Runningonbrains was simply wrong and that the correct interpretation of "specifically noted otherwise" is a broad one. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Info: I have sent an email inquiring to the DMX office of the NWS on which some of the images are hosted. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - with the caveat that the one file that's already been confirmed through other means to have an appropriate license - and any others that are confirmed during this request - should not be deleted. But in the absence of explicit licensure being found for any of these files, they should be deleted under the precautionary principle given new-found concerns over the NWS's "seriousness" of their scrutiny. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep File:1999 Salt Lake City tornado.jpg. Per this NWS Webpage, the image is present with no subsequent attribution. Per the NWS disclaimer linked at the bottom of the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." This file has 0 "unless specifically noted otherwise" claims. This is in the public domain, as it is on the NWS webpage and has its own weather.gov URL, which clearly shows it is on the web servers/web sites of the National Weather Service. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that page were the only thing we knew about that file, then I'd absolutely agree with you, on exactly the same grounds. But it isn't all we know. We absolutely know where the NWS got this image, and we can't pretend otherwise. Per the PRP: "arguments that amount to "we can get away with it" [...] are against Commons' aims". -- Rlandmann (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To point out, the archived webpage you linked: (1) does not exist anymore, (2) was made by the same NWS office as the one I linked above, and (3) it does not have a copyright notice. Honestly, this situation helps prove why "courtesy of ..." is actually in the public domain. Either way, that webpage is from 2004 while the one I linked above is still live and existing. The fact you would agree that based on that single webpage above, it would be in the public domain proves it is in the public domain. You can "downgrade" a copyright (i.e. something copyrighted can become public domain), but you cannot "upgrade" (public domain cannot be removed from PD [exception is U.S. Congressional order]). If we have that it is PD in 2024, then the 2004 archived, non-existing webpage could be considered a "downgrade". Nonetheless, this is a public domain image in my books. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To address your points one at a time:
    • 1 is irrelevant.
    • 2 is irrelevant to evaluating the copyright status of the image, but does provide yet another demonstration of how the NWS has been wildly inconsistent in how it acknowledges third-party material over the years.
    • As to point 3 -- the presence of an unambiguous copyright notice would certainly confirm that copyright exists over an image. The absence of such a notice (post 1989, anyway) tells us very little. Things don't enter the public domain in the US (any more) simply because they were published without a notice in a specific form (or any notice at all).
    As to why I would agree with your assessment if we didn't have the archived page: it's simple. In the absence of any attribution, we could have made (and personally I certainly would have made!) a reasonable assumption that a work found on a US federal government website is a work of a US federal government employee in the course of their duties. It is this that puts it in the public domain, because such works are ineligible for copyright. In a world where all we knew about the image in question was this page, then I would have concluded that an NWS employee had taken the photo and that it was in the public domain because of that. (Note, not because of the general disclaimer or User:Runningonbrains' personal interpretation of it).
    But that's not the reality we live in. We know (because the NWS told us so elsewhere) that the image originates with KTVX News 4 Utah, shot either by an employee of theirs, or from someone else from whom they purchased it. We also know that the image dates from the US in the year 1999. This means that copyright came into existence when the image was recorded ("fixed") and from that instant, it belonged to somebody. A few decades from now, that copyright will expire and it will enter the public domain. Before that, though, whoever owns that image right now (presumably Nexstar Media Group, who purchased KTVX in 2012, but perhaps someone else if KTVX were only licensing the image/footage) could transfer their rights to the image into the public domain.
    So, to keep this image, we would need to confirm that such a transfer of rights has taken place. But we have no evidence that any such thing ever happened. The absence of an attribution on the page you found very certainly does not constitute such evidence. And without such evidence, we must assume that the copyright is still owned by its creator. -- Rlandmann (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of us know our differences (given the tons of discussions/deletion requests we have both commented on), so I’m not debating you directly, just making my opposition to one of your statements here for others. When you said, “… a work found on a US federal government website is a work of a US federal government employee in the course of their duties. It is this that puts it in the public domain, because such works are ineligible for copyright.” That is not the only reason it would be in the PD. NWS states, “ The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.” It isn’t just things made by NWS employees, but anything on the webpage which is not clearly (“specifically”) annotated as such. On that webpage, it is not annotated with anything, meaning, per NWS, it is public domain. I know you do not agree with that statement, but I was saying that opposition for others to know why we commented back and forth on this. We shall see how the closing administrator treats this, since this single image basically keeps the general disclaimer as a real thing or instantly makes it irrelevant and puts into question if the U.S. government website is even PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to point out that there was one NWS image that was supposedly PD that ended up getting speedy deletion because of it being an obvious copyright violation and for license laundering (the NFL and the AP, don’t matter who owned the copyright; they are still extremely strict for-profit companies and unlikely to release their stuff into the public domain); and I imagine that it probably isn’t going to be the only NWS image that ends up meeting speedy deletion criteria. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And to comment on that particular image; I don’t imagine Nexstar Media Group is going to release their stuff into the public domain either. Because they have strict copyright policy too (albeit maybe not as strict as the NFL); either way, highly likely the Utah tornado picture is NOT public domain and therefore, I still support deletion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct here. Nexstar doesn't release their work for hires into the public domain (at least now). Berchanhimez (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If copyright exists over a file, the fact that somebody publishes it without attribution does not take this copyright away. Another way of looking at it:
    If your understanding of how copyright works is correct, then all you need to do to distribute whatever images (books, movies, music) you like is:
    1. Set up a website somewhere
    2. Include a disclaimer on it saying that "All files on weatherwriter.com are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public."
    3. Collect some recent bestsellers and blockbusters from around the web
    4. Publish them on your website without any attribution
    5. Distribute them freely!
    The fact that you didn't include an attribution (even though you said you would) alters nothing about the copyright status of those files.
    The same would hold true if you published an image in the context of a piece of film criticism ("fair use") and correctly attributed Disney as the copyright owner, but then in a subsequent site update accidentally deleted the attribution. Disney is still the copyright owner, whether you acknowledged them or not in the first place or after the update.
    If you can see why that is so, but cannot see why the same principle applies to this image, I'm genuinely interested in the distinction you draw between them.
    So why isn't there an attribution on the page you found? We simply don't know. It's certainly possible that KTVX surrendered their rights to the image at some point. It's also possible that whoever on the NWS web team who was responsible for creating or updating the page you linked simply made a mistake.
    But we also don't need to know, because the decision to keep or not doesn't rest on the presence or absence of this attribution, but on evidence (that has not yet been produced) that KTVX abandoned their copyright. To put it another way: what evidence do we have that they did that and that the lack of attribution wasn't just a mistake? -- Rlandmann (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don’t have any evidence that it is public domain. The only supposed evidence has been proven false. The NWS disclaimer that says that everything on their servers is (supposedly) public domain is false. So at the moment; we have ZERO evidence. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really calling into question the reliability of the weather service when it comes to marking copyrighted works vs PD. And if we end up continuing to assume that all NWS images are public domain; then WMF will end up in a lawsuit. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll further add that the way you (@Rlandmann) put it; you make WeatherWriter’s rationale sound absolutely ridiculous. It’s like me saying all files on “westvirginiawx.com” (that site doesn’t actually exist) are in the public domain (or maybe all files are licensed under CC-BY or something like that) unless otherwise noted. And then I constantly post copyrighted movies and “forget” to attribute them and mark them as such. What happens? Well they certainly don’t enter the public domain decades early; @WestVirginiaWX would end up in and out of court all the time and his website would get shut down. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we do all of these individually please. ChessEric (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One critical step has been left out of both of those “examples”. You conveniently left out the part where users send the photographs to the website. It is not the website owner going out to get the photos. Someone is physically sending them to the owner. For these, someone is physically sending the photographs to the U.S. government, which also has the disclaimers about photos hosted on their web servers being PD. So using the example by Rlandmann, let me correct it for y’all:
WeatherWriter creates WeatherWriter.com (obviously does not exist in reality).
WeatherWriter then adds a copyright disclaimer that photos hosted on their webpage are in the PD.
Users then send photos to WeatherWriter. <—— Missed Step
WeatherWriter then puts those photos on their website in the PD.

That is the correct example of how the NWS has it. That is why companies don’t often lose anything in court. The fact someone would be stupid enough to send the U.S. government a photograph and not read what happens to it isn’t anyone’s problem but the photographer. There is a point where common sense kicks in. Someone willingly gave a photograph to the U.S. government, even with the U.S. government linking at the bottom of almost every page (at least everyone I have seen related to these discussions) saying in short, “Things on out web servers/web pages are public domain”. There is a reason apps have terms and conditions. Even Wikipedia has terms and conditions (w:WP:TOU). For example, if you threaten to sue Wikipedia, legally, Wikipedia is perfectly fine to perm block you and you can’t do anything about it (w:WP:NLT), as you, the user, are expected to listen to the policies and guidelines of the website/webpage you are using. It doesn’t matter if “you didn’t read it”. You still broke the rules, which you should know exist, given it is linked on the policy page. That disclaimer is linked to every webpage of the NWS. Just saying. Also, per U.S. federal law (which anyone can read at any time), emails to or from the U.S. government are in the public domain and can be freely accessed by anyone when requested. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Don’t believe me? Check out the NOAA FOIA reading room for Hurricane Dorian, which contains hundreds of email communications between NOAA and non-NOAA people. Here is a fun one from “Cheryl Gibbs” to an NWS employee mocking them. That is 100% public domain and free to use. The moment you communicate to the government, it is public domain, unless it is classified or meets one of the 9 FOIA exceptions. NWS/NOAA basically don’t meet any of the exceptions, except a “removal of personal info”, like a mobile phone number in an email. Everything is PD. That is the problem. It doesn’t matter if they emailed it or not, anyone can see it and request it, for free, and have a URL to it in the public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the part about how they fail to read the disclaimer. A simple disclaimer ain’t going to release stuff into PD WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And @WeatherWriter; I used to agree with you. But the weather service has confirmed that the disclaimer is wrong. We had one file speedily deleted within hours because of it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only disclaimer confirmed to be wrong was by NWS Sioux Falls and only for the “uploading = PD” statement. I’m talking about the NWS HQ disclaimer. Check out every webpage linked above. At the bottom of all of them, it says “Disclaimer”. That links to the NWS disclaimer, which states everything is PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the Sioux Falls office also said that their legal team was in agreement that such a disclaimer doesn’t automatically release stuff into the public domain. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And because of that; anything that is made by a source with a strict copyright policy and is on NWS servers tagged PD-NWS; I’m going to vote “speedy delete” on. You can disagree with me all you want; but my opinion is based on the law; and the law ain’t going to change because WeatherWriter wants it to. I am done taking about it; abstaining from further comment in this segment to avoid any arguments. Thank you. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. @WestVirginiaWX: — The speedy deletion was overturned by the administrator who originally deleted the photograph. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then in that case; the deletion discussion has been reopened with all the votes from the (briefly) closed discussion back on the table. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have (attempted to) pinged everyone involved in the discussion (and previous discussion years ago) plus a couple others. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any additional comment on that image should be made on the reopened deletion discussion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- that's certainly helped identify one of the spots in which our understandings of the situation diverge. So, can you explain to me why in the model I described, your very explicit disclaimer doesn't take away the copyright of the media you collected from across the internet? I mean, it says so right there in your disclaimer, doesn't it? -- Rlandmann (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your confusion may stem partially from the fact that “freedom of information” does not mean public domain. Public domain is a copyright issue. The government having to release copies of emails to them by law does not change the copyright status (or lack thereof) of those materials. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get back on track with the matter at hand here? And that is discussing the images listed in THIS discussion. Not any others. Any other image can be handled on the village pump and in a separate DR. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:CharlesCity tornado.jpg was created in 1968. What is the publication history with this file? If it was transferred by the Iowa sheriff to NWS before 1978, that would constitute publication. Abzeronow (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publication history is murky. The NWS got it via The Charles City Press, apparently during the Internet era. I've searched the digital archives of that paper and haven't been able to find it in their contemporary coverage of the tornado. The original version of the image posted by the NWS[1] has a printed caption that makes me quite certain that the image was published as a commercial print or postcard back in the day. Copyright notices (if any) for such publications were usually printed on the reverse of the item, so without access to a physical copy (or an assertion from someone who has a physical copy) we're on shaky ground. I did reach out to a local historian who had published an apparently different copy of the same image on their Facebook page, but they never replied.
Former Sheriff Lane passed away in 1995.[2]
Although the COM:ONUS is on anyone who wants to keep this file to put in the time and effort to provide the evidence that it is free, in the interests of expediency, I will reach out to The Charles City Press and the Floyd County sheriff's office to see what they know. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I can keep this open for another week, so you can see if any additional information on this image is found. Abzeronow (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See new section below. This one is definitely PD. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Third-party images published by the National Weather Service

[edit]

I've now reviewed 1,000 images uploaded under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template and requested deletion of several.

The arguments for deletion, and to keep, are now following repetitive, predictable patterns and it would greatly help all involved if we could centralise discussion and obtain some wider community input.

Therefore, I have opened an RfC to gather opinions. Apologies in advance: it's long and detailed, but is frankly nothing compared to the words and time expended by all parties up to this point. Probably the most crucial issue revolves around how we interpret a general disclaimer published at weather.gov (Q.1 in the RfC).

Your advice is greatly appreciated! --Rlandmann (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia again

[edit]

I've just discovered that

  • we're hosting a higher-res version of the Xenia image here
  • the Associated Press claims copyright over the image

I have opened a separate DR in light of the second point. The considerations for it are significantly different from the other six files listed here, hence the separate discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More information about MinnetonkaTornado.jpg

[edit]

I now have the original publication details for this image:

  • it was published in the "Best Snapshots of the Week" feature of the Minneapolis Tribune, Sunday July 4, 1965, page 90
  • the front page of the newspaper carried a correctly-formulated copyright notice: "Copyright 1965 Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company" ✓[OK]
  • the newspaper was correctly registered with the US Copyright Office. It appears in the Catalog of Copyright Entries Part 2: Periodicals Jan-Dec 1965, page 201. The July 4, 1965 edition was registered with the USCO on July 3, and given registration number B1973529 ✓[OK]
  • under the copyright laws of the time, renewal would have been required in the 28th year after publication; that is, in 1994. However, the requirement to renew copyrights was removed by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, at which time the newspaper's 1965 copyright was still valid. ✓[OK]

Note that registrations of collective works like newspapers or anthologies protected the individual contributions within them, even when these contributions were not works for hire. The most often-cited case law on this is Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc., 425 F.2d 397 (2d Cir. 1970), a case that is directly analogous to this one.

Therefore, this image is properly protected by the copyright of the newspaper in which it was published for 95 years after publication. It will enter the public domain in 2061.

More information about CharlesCity tornado.jpg

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination

So I got a very fast, generous, and comprehensive reply from the editor of The Charles City Press who states that:

  • this photo of the tornado (together with around 100 others!) was taken by Sheriff Lane while on duty. The negatives, prints, and slides were, for a long time, held by the county sheriff's office
  • former Sheriff Lane passed away in 1995 (as we knew separately)
  • in 2013, the sheriff's office donated the whole collection of negatives, prints, and slides to the Floyd County Museum
  • the copy of the photo held by The Charles City Press was supplied by Sheriff Lane "for general news use" and the paper asserts that it "retains rights to use it in news articles related to that event, but [is] unsure of any other copyright status."

This final point encouraged me to broaden my search of the The Charles City Press archives. Although I still cannot find evidence of them publishing it any time around the event itself, I did find a few instances where this image was published in the years since. Significantly, two of these instances were in editions of the paper published prior to 1989 without a copyright notice:

  • "Local officials ready for tornado season", Charles City Press, April 5, 1977, page 1
  • "Killer tornado", Charles City Press, May 13, 1983, page 1

The Charles City Press does not appear in the Catalog of Copyright Entries for 1977, and more importantly, does not appear in a search of the Copyright Catalog at the Library of Congress.

I have updated the image's page with this information and applied the "PD-US-no notice" tag.

Deleted: Most per discussion. Not enough evidence these were dedicated to the public domain. Kept two that can be hosted here. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Some_third-party_images_hosted_on_National_Weather_Service_servers&oldid=961480799"