Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/10

copyright violation; contemporary artwork, no freedom of panorama (see https://www.lenzburg.ch/upload/cms/user/AlterGemeindesaalInternet.pdf) Martin Sg. (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The work is located in the open space of the building, offering freedom of panorama. Arkelin (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No representa fielmente el traje Fortizh (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion in my opinion --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped again, this image is not necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cltjames (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of a copyrighted artwork, no FoP in Russia except architecture. Quick1984 (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The file got reuploaded after having been deleted some years ago. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Tears of Steel in 4k - Official Blender Foundation release.webm Nathanielcwm (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively it should be merged into the aforementioned file as it's the same content redownloaded from YouTube but in better quality (format 313 and 251). Nathanielcwm (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of the dragon? Definitely not {{PD-textlogo}}, but might of course be PD for another reason. Jonteemil (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted photo A1Cafel (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep @A1Cafel: Hello, The picture that is in the hands of Masoud Pezeshkian is actually owned by the website khamenei.ir, who interviewed him and gave a gift to the Pezeshkian. (The subject of the photo frame is the meeting of Masoud Pezeshkian with Ali Khamenei about 20 years ago.) CaesarIran (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:MollyFantasy Takamatsuhigashi.jpg
• File:MollyFantasy f Ayagawa.jpg
• File:Inside view of AEON MALL Ayagawa.jpg
• File:Colonel Sanders statue in AEON MALL Ayagawa.jpg
• File:Muji 500 Takamatsu Station.jpg
• File:Mister Donut Takamatsu Station.jpg
• File:Cocokara fine Takamatsu Station store.jpg
• File:Burger King Takamatsu Station.jpg
• File:Deco Home Takamatsu Station.jpg
• File:Tsutaya Bookstore Takamatsu Station.jpg
• File:Can Do Takamatsu Station.jpg
• File:AEON Cinema Ayagawa.jpg

Uploader request. --Shogo1999 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to request because I took these without any permissions. Shogo1999 (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:CharlesCity tornado.jpg -- "Photo by then Floyd County Sheriff L.L. Lane"
• File:Xenia tornado.jpg -- (archive of source page shows all photos on that page were from third parties. Based on the description, this one was probably by Fred Stewart, but in any case, it wasn't the NWS)
• File:AuroraTor4 LookingNorth.jpg -- "Photos courtesy of Jeremy Wesely"
• File:College Park to Laurel Tornado.jpg -- "Photo by Langston Majette"
• File:MinnetonkaTornado.jpg -- "A photo taken by Minnetonka resident H. B. Milligan ... The photo was published in July 1965 by the Minneapolis Tribune as part of the "Photos of the Week" feature"
• File:1999 Salt Lake City tornado.jpg -- "Photo courtesy of KTVX News 4 Utah"
• File:Washington D.C. tornado.jpg -- "Photo by Michael Shore"

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:

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

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

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

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]

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]

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]

As much as it pains me to do this because the Wikipedia/Commons collage for 2020 uses this picture; there is simply no way of knowing for sure whether or not this third party file is copyrighted or not. So I am reluctantly renominating this file for deletion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this file was nominated prior and kept; but that was on the pretext that everything on NWS servers are public domain. We have two emails from the weather service that prove that it simply isn’t the case. The NWS does host non-free content and without an email from the weather service (preferably to VRT) confirming the copyright status of this work; the status is very ambiguous. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, my vote is conditional delete as the nominator of this file. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

 Keep - While I honor the ambiguous expression that WestVirginiaWX has expressed, I feel that at the time of uploading and posting on the NWS website, the photo submission guidelines indicating ownership release and entry into the PD was clear. However, that previous page is deprecated. The current legal disclaimer begins clearly with "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" with three exception conditions which have not been met. The photo above, which is still hosted on the NWS-DMX 2020 derecho report, does not note any specific copyright retention. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at village pump right now and let me know what they say. They want to deprecate the template that this image is using. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link they cited in the previous discussion also leads to an error 404 message. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to though; you’re more than welcome to email the weather service and ask them if it’s copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned it on the main post regarding these, but I am emailed DMX and am currently in discussion with them. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's no such thing as the NWS's image submission guidline; just many different image submission guidelines used by different NWS regional offices at different times for different purposes (summary of about 12 known, different, and contradictory ones in another DR here). A couple of them mention the PD, most of them do not. Since we have no way of knowing which (if any) of these the submitter actually used, we have no evidence of permission that the creator released this file into the public domain. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: The image comes from this NWS webpage. At the bottom of the webpage is a disclaimer button. Per that disclaimer, “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.” The caption of the image is: "Corn damaged near Adel. Courtesy of Lisa Schmitz". The bottom of the webpage also directly says, "Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged! Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site."

For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark.

Based on this evidence: (1) There is no clear "specifically annotated otherwise" copyright statements with this image. (2) NWS says to acknowledge them when using info from the webpage. (3) The image is clearly hosted on a web site as well as on the web servers of the National Weather service, indicating the disclaimer can be used. For all of those reasonings, I support keeping this image as it is a public domain image. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WeatherWriter. ChessEric (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded as own work, but this is clearly a corporate logo and found eg. at https://bharatclub.co DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-textlogo, but is it in scope? Yann (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Fuji-sancyo post office stamp.jpg
• File:Mino-o Station Stamp.jpg
• File:Post offices in Saitama prefecture.jpg
• File:富士山頂郵便局風景印.jpg
• File:昭和基地内分室の風景印.jpg

Derivative works of supposedly copyrighted artworks. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The building dates to 2002 and was authored by architect w:fr:Fabrice Notari (see w:fr:Église Sainte-Thérèse de Monaco). As there is no Freedom of Panorama in Monaco, this image under a commercial CC licensing infringes Notari's copyright over the architectural work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as F10 by IP user, this is more likely a copyvio. No exif etc Gbawden (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is an exif? I am working on the English Wikipedia article for this actor, I wrote him in case he wants to release a photo of him in public domain and this was the result. Manzzoku (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manzzoku, have the actor write to COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that. Manzzoku (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ticket:2024081210008473 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 17:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No quiero que aparezca en mi página de usuario Webluciamarin (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for keeping this image during the prior discussion is no longer valid. The NWS has said that third party images on their servers are NOT in the public domain. Barring any VRT confirmation; I am reluctantly forced to renominate this file. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, my vote is conditional delete pending any new information. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

• Comment Before this devolves into another crapshow of a deletion discussion, I will be emailing the National Weather Service regarding this particular image, because this is extremely famous. Also WestVirginiaWx, they didn't say specifically that they weren't, that said they might (at least last time I checked).

Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well evidently you haven’t checked in a while. The main rationale behind the original template has been proven false by the weather service. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I'm still emailing NWS San Antonio. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from the NWS in Sioux City to @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...." WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm still emailing San Antonio. They fall under this image. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they say that it IS public domain; make sure to tell them to forward their reply to the VRT. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If it is, then someone needs to email whoever the heck runs all NWS subdivisions, because this is a disagreement within the NWS. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I copy-and-paste the email content here before sending? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NWS Austin/San Antonio,

Hello! I am one member of a team of people who work on tornado-related pages on Wikipedia, and we had a few questions about the copyright status of several tornado images that have come to our attention:

1. The first image that we had a question with is the famous "Dead Man Walking" image from the May 27, 1997 Jarrell F5, taken by Scott Beckwith (who did not work at the National Weather Service) and is a third-party. This image can be found here: May 27, 1997 Central Texas Tornado Outbreak (arcgis.com). Since this image is featured in a National Weather Service-authored webpage, does this make it public domain?

2. Are images put into the public domain once they are featured on a NWS webpage, whether permission was asked or not?

3. Does the National Weather Service ask for permission to put all images not made by an employee into the public domain?

4. How early on was the NWS Image Disclaimer (which can be found at NWS Disclaimer For Photo Use (weather.gov)) used, and are photos given to the National Weather Service before this disclaimer was implemented public domain?

Thank you for taking the time to read this email, as this is a very serious issue. We have already emailed one seperate National Weather Service office, as this could potentially change the copyright status of hundreds, if not thousands, of images. Have a great day!

Please forward this email to info-en@wikimedia.org and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org when replying. Thank you!

Does this answer all questions we have? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I have sent it. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since this was last discussed, we've been able to establish that the NWS has had many different image submission guidelines used by different NWS regional offices at different times for different purposes (summary of about 12 known, different, and contradictory ones in another DR here). A couple of them mention the PD, most of them do not. Since we have no way of knowing which (if any) of these the submitter actually used, we have no evidence of permission that the creator released this file into the public domain. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Vote was neutral, see new vote below) until the NWS answers the email. ChessEric (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still waiting for a reply. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 21:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Until the NWS actually gets around to answering my email. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 21:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still maintaining my conditional delete vote (see under WestVirginiaWX) until said email is answered. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a weird feeling that the NWS either never received the email, or is just tired of getting emails on this matter, because they haven't responded. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 06:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s remember. Even if this is deleted. The image can still be uploaded to Wikipedia because it does meet the NFF criteria. @Rlandmann can walk you through the process. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you; I’d check your junk folder, sometimes emails like that get sent to the junk folder. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of how NFFs work, I've uploaded several myself. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 21:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got a better idea; since we know who created the image. @Rlandmann, why don’t you try to contact Scott Beckwith and see if he did (or is willing to) release this into the public domain or freely license it? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding that COM:ONUS places the responsibility for the time, effort (and even expense) of seeking photographers' permission on the person who uploaded the image or who are arguing to keep it, I've been systematically researching and reaching out to as many photographers as I can find. Scott Beckwith has been high on my list, but I have had no luck so far finding him. I even watched a YouTube video a while ago where a tornado researcher was also trying to find him, also with no luck.

Sadly, I don't think we'll be hearing from him anytime soon. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep Now it's enough. The user uploaded many files, requested many deletions, reuploaded the files and re-requests deletions now ?? The user has a history of harassment, blocks (on own request??) and disruptive editing. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep Now it's enough. The user uploaded a file, requested deletion, reuploaded the file and re-requests deletion now ?? The user has a history of harassment, blocks (on own request??) and disruptive editing. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep Now it's enough. The user uploaded a file, requested deletion, reuploaded the file and re-requests deletion now ?? The user has a history of harassment, blocks (on own request??) and disruptive editing. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages using this file. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep Now it's enough. The user uploaded many files, requested many deletions, reuploaded the files and re-requests deletions now ?? The user has a history of harassment, blocks (on own request??) and disruptive editing. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German painter Elisabeth „Els“ Engler died in 1959, so these works are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored when their US copyrights (restored by the URAA) will have expired, I'll add notes and undeletion categories. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Klosterhoefler.

• File:Els Engler (Selbstportrait) jm177703.jpg
• File:Gustav Albert (Els Engler)1 jm177729.jpg
• File:Josef Siebold (Els Engler) jm177730.jpg
• File:KlosterMuseum St.Märgen jm177721.jpg
• File:Lambert Faller (Els Engler) jm177722.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 18:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Photos were taken in the museum - they were taken after a consultation in the museum for an article about els engler, therefore it is ok to show them here. My article was not published up to now, because some people think that this artist is not important enough for an article, despite of beeing graduated from the Großherzoglichen Malerinnenschule Karlsruhe.

--Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 19:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think "it is ok to show them here" "after a consultation in the museum"? They are not in the public domain. Does the museum own the copyright for these works by Els Engler? If so, they should send a proper permission to COM:VRT. --Rosenzweig τ 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this is a photo of another photo, taken inside a museum in Germany. Presumably taken in Germany. This could have been taken in the 1930s and 1940s, but since both Elisabeth Engler as well as her sister standing next to her died in 1959 (and I don't know when the other three persons died), it could also be from the 1950s. In any case it does not look old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. We'd need more information about the year and author (= photographer) to be able to perhaps determine the copyright status of the photo, else the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 18:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Photo was taken as a reproduktion of an old photo in the museum - it was taken after a consultation in the museum for an article about els engler, therefore it is ok to show it here. My article was not published up to now, because some people think that this artist is not important enough for an article, despite of beeing graduated from the Großherzoglichen Malerinnenschule Karlsruhe.

--Jörgens.Mi ^Talk 19:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think "it is ok to show it here" "after a consultation in the museum"? Who took the (original) photograph, when was it taken? Why would it be ok for Wikimedia Commons where only free media files (Commons:Licensing) are accepted? --Rosenzweig τ 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we need a permission from the author. OK in the source, but not de minimis any more. Yann (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann is a derivative work. 186.173.105.104 20:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eigenes Werk? Bild und Text? Oder irgendwo kopiert? GerritR (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eigenes Werk - Jakobo Jakobo (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we really assume this is own work without proof? Google Lens gives quite a few hits, but of course it is possible that it's still own work. Jonteemil (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by subject as own work. No indication that they took the picture. C F A 💬 23:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this one is really by the user, but most of their uploads are from Facebook, so delete per precautionary principle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this one is really by the user, but most of their uploads are from Facebook, so delete per precautionary principle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A better picture exists -Zardoz91 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A better picture exists Zardoz91 (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC) {subst:delete2|image=File:Léon.svg|reason=A better picture exists}} Zardoz91 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion request -Zardoz91 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Doublon - duplicate file[reply]

•  Keep You need to link to the duplicate so we can compare. --RAN (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This lion is called "Morné" representative of Léon