Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg

File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg

This image is the work of Jeff Sisson, who contributed it to the US National Weather Service website sometime prior to 19 September 2015. Its presence here on the Commons relies on the fact that for some years now, the NWS makes release into the public domain a condition of such submissions.

However, we have no evidence for whether or not the same terms applied at the time Sisson made his submission, due to uncertainty around the date he did that, and also the date when those terms first came into effect.

You can find the current terms of submission here, and the earliest date I've been able to verify that they existed is in the history of the template right here on the Commons. Dated 13 May 2009, it predates the earliest Internet Archive capture by over six years, and confirms the crucial part of the wording precisely.

Although we don't know when Sisson contributed his photo, he also submitted a written recollection of the tornado whose aftermath is depicted in it. The NWS site hosts it here, unfortunately without a date. It's published amid other written accounts of the event that were submitted in 2008, but the submissions are not in chronological order and the earliest one is from 2006. (We also don't know that Sisson's photo and his written account were submitted at the same time).

This discussion started over on English Wikipedia, where User:WeatherWriter was kindly able to cite numerous previous deletion discussions here on the Commons about files using the {{PD-NWS}} tag. I've reviewed those, but none of them seem to have addressed the specific question I'm raising here about what evidence we have for the terms under which an image was contributed.

Some of the images under discussion in those might also have been made prior to 13 May 2009, but there seems to have been an assumption that the terms then were the same as the terms now, without anyone actually checking if this was the case.

Finally, note that there are a few hundred other images that potentially fall into this same gap where they were submitted to the NWS under terms that we do not now know. Rlandmann (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Keep This is splitting hairs. The image is in a 2024 NWS webpage, therefore it follows the copyright free disclaimer actually in force. Pierre cb (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence that the disclaimer applies retrospectively? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Precedent and past discussions with this template have agreed it does. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg is an example of a pre-2009 image being discussed. WeatherWriter (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Precedent and past discussions" are not evidence. And I'm not seeing any evidence in the "Dead Man Walking" discussion either, although it's convoluted enough that I might be missing it. If there's actual evidence in there of the terms under which the image was submitted, or alternatively, that the current NWS disclaimer applies retrospectively to all past submissions, then please point it out. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your entire argument is that because it is a pre-2009 image, we don’t know the rules on how it was given to NWS. So absolutely, the Dead Man Walking photograph of a pre-2009 image does help provide evidence to support the precedent that it does apply to pre-2009 images given to the NWS. As stated by Pierre cb, it exists on an NWS webpage in 2024, with is after 2009. Your argument would only apply to NWS webpages pre-2009. Unless you have evidence to say the image existed on the NWS web servers pre-2009, then your argument does not work. Copyrights cannot change, so if it is post-2009, then it is PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

When I say there is no evidence, I mean that we do not have any proof -- any written record -- that tells us either that the terms since 2009 have "always" applied (for some value of "always") or that they apply retrospectively to anything that was submitted in the past. The "Dead Man Walking" discussion does not furnish evidence of either of these.

The only thing that it does provide evidence for is that nobody in that discussion thought to question whether the licencing terms of the NWS today are the same as the licencing terms when the image was submitted. That issue was never raised and never discussed.

It's also noteworthy that the discussion was never concluded; the nom was withdrawn when the "keep" side convinced the nominator that the rule today must always have existed.

Websites and print publications can, and routinely do, contain images under a mixture of different copyright statuses and licences.

And licence agreements can change. For all we can prove, the T&Cs on 12 May 2009 might have been completely different and said "By submitting a photo, you grant the NWS a perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use the photo on its websites and other publications without compensation to you."

We simply don't know when "release to the public domain" became part of the deal, and by extension, the copyright or licence status of public-contributed images that were submitted prior to 2009 (regardless of when they were actually taken).

You claim that "Copyrights cannot change", and yet that's precisely what the "keep" argument relies on (stated by Pierre cb and endorsed by you): that we don't need to know the copyright status of the image, because if it wasn't in the Public Domain when it was actually submitted, the current disclaimer somehow makes it part of the Public Domain now. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Per PD-NWS. Clearly follows the copyright template. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What copyright template was in force when the photographer submitted his image to the NWS? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As the earliest record we have of the NWS webpage is 2015 (archived 2015 version), it is the NWS webpage disclaimer. That disclaimer has existed ever since NWS started making webpages on weather.gov and as such, that disclaimer is used. It doesn’t matter that it may or may not have been given to NWS pre-2009. If it is the disclaimer and it exists on an NWS webpage in modern times, it would still hold up. Copyrights don’t change. If NWS’ disclaimer says it is PD, then it is PD. That simple. WeatherWriter (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If there is some evidence that the "disclaimer has existed ever since NWS started making webpages on weather.gov and as such, that disclaimer is used" then please present your evidence for this. Simply asserting it doesn't make it true.

"Copyrights don't change" -- so logically, if a pre-2009 submission was made under a non-free licence, whatever submission terms are put in place later doesn't change its copyright status and suddenly make it free, right? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Just a quick comment for the closer — The PD-NWS template has been discussed in several dozen discussions (and subsequent DRs). Search for “PD-NWS” or “National Weather Service” to locate those discussions in the DR search feature. WeatherWriter (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment Just a quick comment for the closer — The specific issue raised in this discussion (whether the current NWS disclaimer covers all past submissions to the NWS, even beyond the point where we have evidence of such a disclaimer) has never been discussed before. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Per PD-NWS. File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg is a perfect example of a pre-2000s image that falls under this template, and I don't see why this one is different. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 20:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, why single this image out? The entire community has agreed that images on the NWS website are PD, no matter the timing. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The "entire community" has never discussed whether we can rely on the NWS disclaimer having effect even before we can document that such a disclaimer even existed. This point was not raised during the "Dead Man Walking" discussion, nor any other discussion that anybody here has been able to point to. And the "Dead Man Walking" discussion was never completed; the nominator withdrew the nomination when folks convinced them (without a shred of evidence) that the current terms of submission had always existed.

And I agree with you -- if we cannot be certain that this is a free image, there are many others that we need to re-examine in this new light as well, including "Dead Man Walking". I've been doing some checking, and it looks like there might be roughly 150 images that are potentially affected. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Whats funny is you are saying every discussion before is irrelevant. That is literally not how Wikipedia/Wikimedia works. What's funny is Commons administrators have ruled in favor of it being in the public domain & even Commons administrators have uploaded pre-2009 images under that template, following a pre-1974 image being nominated on English Wikipedia for a Featured Picture Candidate. Now you (and mind you, so far, only you) are saying it is wrong. Consensus and copyright rules seem to be against your arguments entirely. The fact all of that has happened and discussions for years have ruled in favor of keeping pre-2009 images under that template, this is a moot point. To be fair, you are saying almost 150 images violate copyright rules, that a Commons administrator violated copyright rules, that long-time editors have violated copyright rules, and most importantly, that images that have been specifically reviewed for copyright rules are violating copyright rules even (including the File:Bridge Creek, OK tornado 1999-05-03.png, on a EN-Wiki Good Article, which has a direct review of images for copyright violations & not to mention the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado article has been feeatured on EN-Wiki homepage four times!) Like, this point is literally moot. With this comment, I rest my case. This is turning more away from this image and more on the copyright template overall. My original Keep !vote will remain and I am dropping the stick to not let this become a small debate, rather than a discussion. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm saying that every discussion that did not discuss this particular point is not relevant... to this particular point.

You are also putting a lot of other words into my mouth that I simply have not said. In particular, I am not saying that this image (or the ~150 others potentially affected) "violate copyright rules" or anything of the sort. I'm just saying that for images like this, we simply don't know what their copyright status is. Maybe they're fine, maybe they're not. But if you're going to assert that an image is copyright-free or available under a free licence, then you really need to have some evidence to support that claim.--Rlandmann (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Dead Man Walking is confirmed PD. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 12:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And like WeatherWriter, I'm stepping back, as this is turning into a WP:FORUM. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• KEY: KMTV-TV published an article in May 2023 with this image and the caption stated “NWS La Crosse, WI for the attribution. Even the media acknowledges the claim to the public domain-ness of images on the NWS website. Either way, that is actual confirmation from a secondary RS source who attributed the U.S. government. This image is clearly PD, undeniable now. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Simply, no. When 3NewsNow believes an image to be in the public domain, they credit it "Public Domain", as they did here, here, or here. Prima facie, it appears KMTV made the same mistake that User:Sir MemeGod did when he uploaded the image to English Wikipedia -- like him, they assumed that because it was on a NWS website, it was the work of the NWS. We see similar errors from time-to-time with folks assuming that images they find on NASA websites necessarily belong to NASA (and are therefore in the public domain), hence the various cautionary notes in the {{PD-NASA}} template. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, the {{PD-NWS}} template might need some similar language included. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment — One final note: Here is a full link to the NWS Photo Use policy, which directly stated, “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.”

 Comment — This part is not under dispute. Everyone here agrees that images contributed by the public fall under this policy as far back as we can prove this policy existed, which as of right now, is 13 May 2009. Nobody has any evidence for how long this policy existed before this date. Also, it seems everybody here agrees that whenever this policy was created, it would not change the copyright status of anything that had been submitted under any previous terms and conditions. That is, if some previous terms had existed, this policy would not retroactively change the copyright or licensing of any images that had already been submitted. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Keep - as other editors point out. The webpage may have been created in 2022, but the government policy of stuff being in the public domain has likely been in effect long before then. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I would think that as a federal government agency, the public domain policy would have likely been in effect for as long as that law was in effect. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

And furthermore; the NWS also has a policy that if they get complaints about possible copyright infringement; they immediately remove and delete the image. It is extraordinarily rare to find a copyrighted image on there. The SPC also has a little entry on their tornado FAQ that says that anything from the NOAA photo library are free and in the public domain. As for stuff not in that library on NWS pages prior to 2009, I think they’re in the public domain, but I’m not 100% sure; only 97, 98% sure. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

But I’ll keep looking. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

If someone can look and see how long the government has been effectively prohibited from claiming copyright on their works, that would be great. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Works of the US Federal Government have been ineligible for copyright protection since 1895, therefore automatically placing them in the Public Domain. (Like the images in the NOAA photo library, which also includes a really clear notice about the copyright status of the images)

That said, the image under discussion here was not created by a Federal Government employee, and US Federal Government websites can and do host material under a variety of copyright statuses and licences (ie, not all the material they host was created by federal agencies or employees). The mere presence of a photo or other resource on a .gov website doesn't mean it's in the Public Domain. (The {{PD-NASA}} template does a good job of explaining this). Also note the NOAA disclaimer on the site you linked that their videos sometimes include third-party copyright footage and can't be re-used. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

One thing to point out, even if the image was created before 2009, it’s very possible it could have been uploaded to the NWS website after that time. Especially true for tornadoes older than about 2000, because the weather.gov website didn’t even exist at all before about that time. You’re not going to have a copyright policy or a public domain policy on a website that doesn’t exist. And also, usually NOAA will declare when a copyrighted image is shown. If they specifically say copyrighted or not for reuse; then you know that it is copyrighted and can’t be hosted here. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

And we all can acknowledge that there are rare cases where copyrighted content is found on the NWS website. But again, the National Weather Service isn’t going to host copyrighted content without clarifying of its copyrighted status in some way. I know governments and politicians can be dishonest sometimes, but I don’t think that the National Weather Service is going to purposely withhold copyright information just to cause people (or the Wikimedia Foundation) to be sued for copyright infringement. And I imagine they’re not going to be “gun ho cowboy” and recklessly host copyrighted content either. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

And it’s no longer just one image that’s under discussion @Rlandmann, it’s the better part of over a hundred of them. Just for your information. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

And another thing; has there ever actually been any copyright infringement suits filed over NWS images? Has there ever been any DMCA notices over NWS images? Probably not. Unless some rogue person didn’t know what he was doing when he uploaded it; or someone wanted to drum up drama because they are some kind of attention seeking drama queen (king) or something.

When a person submits a picture to the National Weather Service, they are generally (with few exceptions) doing it with the expectation that other people will use it; and when they submit it to the National Weather Service, they are probably wanting others to use it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me address a few of these points.

• You are absolutely correct that the image could have been uploaded to the website after 2009. It shows up in the first and oldest archive.org snapshot we have of the page that includes it (15 September 2015). So all we know is that it was before that date. (And like you say, that it was sometime after the NWS got a website!)
• And yes, the NOAA does credit third-party image creators on their sites; it's just that a credit alone does not tell us anything about the copyright or licence status of the image. The general policy stated on weather.com is that any material not actually created by the NOAA is only used by them under licence, and to re-use it, you need to get in touch with the image owner.[1]. The photo submission process that folks in this discussion are pointing to is an exception to this general principle. (We just don't have any evidence that shows us to which images it specifically applies)
• As a recent example of how this ambiguity plays out, take a look at this presentation that just includes a footnote to say "Some images are proprietary to Gulfstream, Inc". But not a single one of them is specifically identified. Which ones are we free to re-use from that presentation? We can only guess. In the same way, the image presently under discussion is explicitly credited to Jeff Sisson, and we can only guess about its copyright status; and if it is under copyright, we have no way of knowing its licence. Nobody this is saying this is deliberately withholding copyright information, or being careless. It's just not particularly clear or helpful, unfortunately.
• And thanks for pointing out that this discussion could have implications beyond just the specific image we're talking about here. It was I who provided that ~150 estimate (although, after some deeper digging, I'd now estimate the potential figure to be about 2-3 times that).
• As for your question about lawsuits, note that it's not the NWS's permission to host the image that's under question here. It's whether anybody else other than the NWS has permission to take the image and do whatever they like with it.
• Similarly, to your question about people's intentions when they share a photo with the NWS. What they "probably want" doesn't actually provide us with any evidence of the copyright or licence status of the image. (And is unknowable, anyway) --Rlandmann (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point. But I would think that considering there are other NOAA pages and prior precedent here that implies that any image on a NOAA server is public domain unless otherwise stated; I would think that the weather service would indicate whether a photo or a group of photos were copyrighted. And it goes back to what @WeatherWriter mentioned: if you @Rlandmann are correct, that means that we have to go through all the trouble of changing the PD-NWS template, delete hundreds of files, and warn just about every weather editor on this wiki that they committed a copyright violation. And that would mean also that at least one commons admin would have committed a copyvio too. You say that there’s no evidence that it’s public domain; but there’s also no evidence and no proof that it is copyrighted. And let me ask you one more question @Rlandmann, has the Wikimedia Foundation been involved in any lawsuits over NWS images? I’m sorry, but no matter how many arguments you throw at me, you’re not going to get me to change my mind. I’m in favor of keeping and I’m going to be a stubborn mule about it. I reiterate my keep vote and I’m not moving one measly inch away from it. You might as well just let it go. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that if folks here can't find actual evidence to say that this image and others like it are free, then yes, we'll need to go though hundreds of images to make determinations about whether they're also free or not. And I'm absolutely willing to help out with that effort. Some preliminary investigation I did suggests that this wouldn't take as long as you're perhaps imagining.

I have no insight into whether the Foundation has been sued over a NWS image, but I'll assume not. The absence of a lawsuit does not, of course, make or imply that an image is free. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

And to answer the question about Gulfstream. It’s likely that the proprietary images were company-produced images to showcase the new aircraft. But you noticed that they declared that the images were proprietary. It all reverts back to the fact that the National Weather Service isn’t going to blindly host something and say their stuff is in the public domain without declaring any copyrighted content. Because if that were the case, it’d be a lawsuit fest. They always declare whether an image is proprietary in some way; if it’s not mentioned as proprietary, it probably isn’t proprietary. That’s why you see on some of the story maps and other pages whenever a copyrighted thing is shown, it says “not for reuse” or it’ll have a copyright watermark on it. The only exception for that would probably be images from places like Getty and the like that have extremely strict copyright and have filed bunches of lawsuits. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Since 1 January 1978, images in the United States have not needed a copyright notice or the copyright symbol to be protected by copyright. They are automatically protected unless they meet a range of specific conditions to the contrary. weather.gov very specifically says that "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider."

As to Gulfstream's photos, sure we can guess which ones they mean, but we can't know for sure, because they didn't specifically say. And at least one of the images from that presentation shows up in other places, like here, credited to Gulfstream, but without a specific copyright notice. Maybe it's free to use, maybe it's not.

The point here is that the .gov websites host a variety of materials under a variety of copyright statuses and licences, and that when it comes to third-party content, those statuses not as clear any of us would like. Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick note to what WestVirginiaWX stated earlier since I was pinged here: As to I would think that the weather service would indicate whether a photo or a group of photos were copyrighted...They do. See this webpage (the "Tornado Photos" tab) which clearly shows the "©" symbol, indicating those are copyrighted. They actually bold and highlighted it saying "The following images and text © copyright Gene Moore unless otherwise indicated." The long-standing policy is the actual copyright symbol is needed. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twin tornadoes.jpg was a deletion discussion regarding this photograph, which has the actual "©" symbol watermark. That is the key to look for. Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg is another discussion where an image was watermarked without the "©" symbol and it was deemed to be in the public domain. NWS does a good job of indicating when it is or is not public domain. Actual, that website on a tornado outbreak in 1979 is a key one to look at. Check out the "Damage" tab. There are non-NWS photos listed with "courtesy of ..." without the actual "©" symbol. That is what NWS does. If it is copyrighted, they add the symbol. If not, then it is public domain. That website right there basically shuts down your whole argument as it is clear NWS does indeed indicate pre-2009 photos IF they are or are not copyrighted. WeatherWriter (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ll also add that the National Weather Service has a policy of speedily deleting any pictures or videos that cause them to receive complaints of copyright infringement. You can find that in the terms of submission too. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The absence of a complaint does not tell us that an image is free to use.-- Rlandmann (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright look @Rlandmann, I know you are passionate about your opinion here. You have very strong views towards deletion. I get that. But if you haven’t already noticed by now. And I’m going to be kinda blunt here. Just about everyone else including me is just as strongly against deletion as you are for. Using a phrase from a recent deletion discussion on Wikipedia, you’re kinda (hate to say it) in a one against many argument here. Not trying to be rude or insulting or anything; just being bluntly honest here and I’m trying to (nicely) explain to you why the stuff on the NWS website is public domain unless noted otherwise. And again, what you are requesting is unreasonable and would require an all hands on deck response because it would be a mass deletion and sweeping changes. That is unlikely to pass without some major consensus there. Not to mention all the dozens of warning templates you’d have to send to nearly every weather editor. You might even need to warn yourself. Do you see where im going? Past precedent as mentioned by others, particularly Weather Writer has shown NWS stuff to be PD; and NWS’ own practice supports this. Not every rule is written and not every NWS policy they is in a handbook is uploaded onto a website. It is essentially an unwritten rule that the NWS must declare whenever a file is copyrighted, otherwise it’s assumed PD. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And something else that I want to kinda politely remind you of. The United States is not the same as Australia. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology copyrights everything (although some stuff is Creative Commons licensed); whereas the National Weather Service releases much of its stuff into the public domain. If you look at the pattern, you’ll see that the National Weather Service will indicate whether something is copyrighted, if they don’t indicate it, it probably isn’t copyrighted. Any organization who doesn’t want to be sued will indicate whether something is copyrighted if the bulk of their stuff is public domain. If the Weather Service didn’t do that, it would constitute a form of copyright infringement (contributory infringement). WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Since I also happen to know that you @Rlandmann are a Wikipedia administrator (I looked at your user page), I’d suggest reading on U.S. copyright law, particularly regarding contributory infringement. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Implicit in some of your comments here seems to be a belief that something is only protected by copyright in the United States if it is accompanied by a copyright notice that says so. That hasn't been the case since the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect on 1 January 1978.

Prior to that date, you're correctː if something was published without a copyright notice in the United States, it wasn't protected at all and was in the Public Domain. That is, works were not protected by copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise -- they defaulted to free.

Since that date, the situation is reversedː all works created in the United States are protected by copyright unless ineligible for some specific reason (eg. not a creative work, or being work of the federal government are two of the most important reasons it might be ineligible, but there are some other fun ones too) -- they default to protected.

In practically all cases, this protection lasts for 70 years from 1 January of the year following the author's death. This applies whether the work was ever published or not.

Therefore, up to the point of submitting it to weather.gov, copyright in this photo already existed and belonged to Jeff Sisson. What happened next depends entirely on what Sisson agreed to when he submitted the file.

If the terms and conditions of submission at the time stated that submitting the image released it into the Public Domain, then the image lost its copyright protection at that instant.

If they didn't, then Sisson's copyright is still intact, and will remain so for decades to come.

If he didn't transfer his copyright away, the absence of a copyright notice doesn't take it away, the absence of a lawsuit doesn't take it away, and discussions on Commons don't take it away.

And, we simply don't know whether he did or didn't. All that weather.gov tells us is that "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider." and "Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." (Emphasis mine).[2] Rlandmann (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If it comes to it, I'm quite happy to send messages to all involved. I generally prefer a personal message rather than warning templates though, except in the case of repeat offenders.

The one thing that has been missing in your explanations of why the content on the NWS website has been actual evidence, rather than supposition or belief. And I guess this is the root of where our opinions diverge. I am relying on actual evidence; facts we can point to, such as the overall weather.gov site disclaimer. The explanations you have offered are based on belief, extrapolation, probabilities, and even (in some cases) the absence of evidence.

The outcome of this nomination will come down to which of those approaches is more consistent with Commons policy -- evidence or supposition. Rlandmann (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let’s just go back to just this one file. Let’s forget about the other files that are according to you, “potentially copyright”, and focus on the file that was originally nominated for deletion. Can you @Rlandmann summarize again exactly why THIS file is nominated for deletion? And then we can focus on whether or not this affects every file on a weather.gov server. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And I’m not implying that a work is only protected by copyright if it’s given a notice. What I’m implying is that the National Weather Service seems to have an unwritten policy of voluntarily giving that notice and usually abstaining from posting copyrighted stuff unless they have to (kinda similar to Wikipedia policy on non free stuff). The point I am making that I don’t think you are understanding is that if they don’t give that notice, they are at risk of being sued for contributory infringement because they would have lead people to believe that the copyrighted file was in the public domain. Because there are generally policies scattered throughout NOAA that basically say that everything is in the public domain unless otherwise noted. I understand you are seeking hard “evidence” that it is public domain, but sometimes the lack of evidence that it is copyrighted can be just as valuable. All roads continue to point to it being public domain and there is absolutely zero reason to believe that anything that doesn’t have an explicit ©️ statement is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that said; I do agree that there is a possibility that some of these images may be copyrighted outside of the United States. Even works by the National Weather Service itself. Works of the federal government are only public domain in the United States, the government still asserts that it can hold the copyright to their works outside the country. (Eg. A U.S. government work may still be under copyright in Canada or Australia) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

But within the U.S., it is likely PD. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And to that about the messages @Rlandmann. You’d be mass-sending dozens if not hundreds of messages; which you aught to already be doing. Go to the WP:WEATHER page and start mass sending to everyone on WP:WEATHER, you’ve got WeatherWriter, Sir MemeGod, ChessEric, Hurricanehink (who is another Wikipedia admin), ChrisWx, and others who will likely end up rebuking you if you notify them. Also another admin, I don’t know if this one is active on WP:WEATHER but Ks0stm has also added stuff to Commons too, you’d have to notify that editor too. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention me. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m done. I can’t convince you that it is public domain; can’t make a dead horse go galloping. So rather than waste time, energy, and slowly have my sanity wither away from me, I’m just going to do what WeatherWriter and others have done and that is to let it go. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled about why you keep coming back to how much work it would be to clean up these images if their PD status cannot be confirmed. This would certainly not be the first time the Commons has faced such a challenge when a whole category of works presumed to be free has been found not to be. And the cleanup can sometimes take years. And none of this is relevant anyway, because the amount of work required to clean up any other affected images has no bearing at all on whether this image is in the Public Domain or not. Rlandmann (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You're correct that copyright can get complicated across international borders, but that's generally in connection with copyrights that might have expired in one country but not another, not where a creator has voluntarily relinquished their copyright (or was ineligible for copyright in the first place). And, from a Commons perspective, this is irrelevant anyway: this image was created and published in the United States; if somehow it were still protected by copyright in some other part of the world (which certainly wouldn't include Australia or Canada) it would not matter -- only US law is relevant in this instance. (And nobody is saying otherwise). Rlandmann (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is the root of where our opinions diverge. I invite you to take a look at some of your recent statements: that the NWS "seem to have an unwritten policy", that the NOAA "basically say that everything is in the public domain unless otherwise noted" and elswehere where you say that the image "is likely PD". (All emphasis mine)

But suppositions and beliefs do not establish the copyright status of work. And on the other hand, the NOAA quite explicitly says the opposite of what you're claiming: that NOAA images are in the public domain, but third-party images are not (even though we know that some of those are in the PD as well, even if we don't know exactly which ones).

The need to include "an explicit ©️ statement" has not been the case in the United States since 1 Janusry 1978, and even the expectation was removed on 1 March 1989, when the US ratification of the Berne Convention came into effect. Remember that although there's a footnote in that Gulfstream presentation that "some" of its images are proprietary, there's no "explicit ©️ statement" on any of them, nor where one of those images turns up on another NOAA webpage, also credited to Gulfstream, but without such a statement.

I agree with you that our assessment of the copyright status of an image might sometimes rest on the absence of evidence to the contrary. The most obvious examples of this would include images published on a US Federal Government website that are not credited to any third party and are therefore presumably works of the US Federal Government and ineligible for copyright. This image, however, is not in that category: it is quite explicitly credited to a third party, and we do not (and probably cannot) know the terms under which he gave or licenced the image to weather.gov. Rlandmann (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Why this image in particular? Only because I happened to notice an anomaly with it. In fact, both I and another admin on English Wikipedia at first didn't know that NWS has a mechanism where some public submissions become public domain. That's unusual in my experience of US Government websites, so I got curious about it. And that's when I realised that there could be an issue here if we couldn't confidently establish when the image was contributed in relation to how long that policy had been there.

I raised the issue on English Wikipedia, where the image was first posted, but before the discussion could be completed, WeatherWriter moved the image to Commons, so I continued it here.

At that point, neither I nor anyone else had any idea of the scope of the issue, so it didn't make any sense to expand the discussion to any other images yet. And neither did it make sense to invest a lot of effort in that endeavour if the outcome of this discussion confirms that these images are fine to keep. Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright I had said I’m done but I’ve got to reply to this one. If you look at @WeatherWriter’s comments, you’ll see that the weather service tells you what images are copyrighted, even if it doesn’t have an official policy of doing so, that basically shuts down your argument right there @Rlandmann. There is no significant doubt to think that it isn’t copyrighted (which is the Commons precautionary principle). It doesn’t require evidence of a policy, because again, it may not be a written policy that is posted on the internet. But you can still see evidence of the policy in action. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Now you can argue about it until the end of time, but if you don’t have any hard evidence that it is copyrighted; my opinion isn’t going to budge. Strongly in favor of keeping. My suggestion for both of our sanity is to just let it go. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

One more thing though, then I promise I’m done. That very same policy also states that if the National Weather Service gets any complaints of copyright infringement, that the file in question gets removed immediately. They take copyright very seriously. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And about that thing saying that we “do not (and probably cannot) know the terms under which he gave or licensed the image to weather.gov” (emphasis mine), Did you ever think about contacting the weather service and asking them to clarify the copyright terms like Hurricanehink is doing?

• Whatever the National Weather Service tells him, if they tell him that they require a specific copyright statement (House rules), then that’s going to majorly shut down your argument right there. Because that would be the National Weather Service going on record saying that everything is public domain.
• If they don’t say that, then we’ve got alot of work to do because it means there are numerous images that are potentially copyrighted and the Wikimedia Foundation would be in violation of federal law (again). If they say that these images are still protected by copyright, then there’s the evidence and I’ll change my vote accordingly. And it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rlandmann, there is actually something posted on the NWS Norman FAQ website that specifically says that they indicate whenever something is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I know this because I found their FAQ website. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Attempt at a refactor

OK! So, there are a lot of words here now. To assist anyone coming in new, I hope that this is an accurate summary of the discussion so far, and I hope that User:Pierre cb, User:WeatherWriter, and User:Sir MemeGod might be able to confirm that this accurately summarises their positions. It would be even better if we could get a third party to intervene here to manage this refactor, but I offer this as a start.

What's not under dispute

• Since at least 13 May 2009, the NWS has had a disclaimer in place to say that when members of the public submit their own photos to the NWS website, they are agreeing to release their images into the public domain. Any public-contributed images of weather events that occurred after this date were obviously submitted under this policy and are therefore in the public domain.
• The image under discussion here is of an event that happened in 1968. Jeff Sisson, who took the photo, submitted it to the NWS website sometime before September 2015
• The NWS cannot change the copyright status of images not owned by them.

Where opinions diverge on this image

• The delete argument runs:
  • We can't prove when "release to the public domain" became a condition for public submissions (the keep side says: we don't need to know this, because the keep argument is based on the disclaimer that has always existed and which covers all public-submitted content on NWS sites. Therefore, this date is irrelevant)
  • We can't prove when the image was submitted to the NWS (the keep side says: we don't need to know this, because the keep argument is based on the disclaimer that has always existed and which covers all public-submitted content on NWS sites, because the keep argument is based on the disclaimer that has always existed and which covers all public-submitted content on NWS sites. Therefore, this date is irrelevant)
  • Therefore, we simply don't know the copyright or licence status of this image and can't assume it to be a free image.

• The keep argument runs:
  • The current disclaimer has always existed, for as long as the NWS has been publishing weather.gov (the delete side says: maybe it did, but claims about copyright and licencing need to be based on proof, and we don't have any)
  • The current disclaimer should be understood to cover not only new submissions, but all those made in the past as well (the delete side says: the disclaimer says no such thing)
  • In many previous discussions on the Commons and on English Wikipedia, nobody has questioned whether the current NWS policy also covers images submitted at all times in the past. This demonstrates a consensus that it does (the delete side says: we cannot assume that silence on this point means consensus on this point)
  • A TV news website once reproduced this image and credited it to the NWS, proving that media professionals understand this image to be in the public domain (the delete side says: that website does not claim that this image is in the public domain; it mistakenly credits the image to the NWS.)
  • Therefore, for any and all these reasons, we know this to be a free image.

Did I miss anything? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but you are too involved to make such a resume : long rebuttal of arguments for Keep, while feeble ones on the Delete side. Pierre cb (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure; please wade in and edit the refactor directly! This should be a collaborative effort. Please make any corrections you think necessary and I hope we can reach a point where all parties could endorse such a summary --Rlandmann (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I won't as I cannot be judge and jury. What we need is a neutral assessment. Pierre cb (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ll see if I can ping some editors to give a neutral opinion here @Ks0stm @Hurricanehink @ChrisWx @HikingHurricane. I promise I am not trying to canvass; but if someone wants to give a neutral opinion, then step right up. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep. I don't see significant doubt that the photos are free, which is the threshold set by COM:PRP. We have no evidence that the NWS used different copyright terms in the past, and we see lots of examples of the NWS correctly labeling copyrighted material. There's no evidence of them incorrectly labeling copyrighted material, which is alleged here. Sure, there is a possibility that the NWS had different terms in the past and/or made a mistake in labeling the photos in question, but without a hint of evidence, I don't think this generates the significant doubt needed to delete. Consigned (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  That is literally the point I have been trying to drive to Rlandmann for a while now. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Keep because the photos were quite possibly submitted after 2009.

those "2008" "2006" dates refer to the date of submission of the blog posts, not the date when those blog posts were submitted to noaa.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150201000000*/www.weather.gov/arx/events shows the earliest archive was crawled "Sat, 04 Apr 2015 01:30:51 GMT (why: alexacrawls)". this suggests it's most likely that the webpage was only created around then, which was way beyond 2009. RZuo (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

My position remains strongly in favor of keeping. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone can find evidence that it actually is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The only NWS images other than ones that clearly say that they are copyrighted; and ones from Getty, that I wouldn’t be comfortable seeing on here; would be images that actually still have proprietary stuff on it, and I’m not just talking about perhaps something proprietary in the background (such as a billboard or a backpack that has for example Disney princesses in it), I’m referring to say news pictures that still have the banner and graphics on them. There is an example of this with a couple images hosted on the NWS Jackson, KY website. The images are from WYMT and still have the banner on them.

Now while the image itself may be in the public domain (and thus, using the entire image would not constitute copyright infringement), parts of the image (the banners) are still under copyright and possibly trademark protection. So if someone were to take that image and then extract the banner from it, then they would be infringing on Gray Media’s copyright.

To a lesser extent, it also applies if something copyrighted is in the background. A particular image might be free of copyright; but you have someone in the background wearing a Mickey Mouse backpack, you can’t extract Mickey Mouse from the image without getting sued by Disney. I hope all of this makes since. Although I would only be worried about that if it is clearly a major part of the background (in other words, no pictures of the backpack allowed, but pictures of tornado damage that happen to show a portion of the backpack or shows the backpack further away would be allowed by virtue of freedom of panorama.) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

But you can’t tell me that this particular tornado picture has Mickey Mouse in the background. So unless Mickey Mouse is hidden somewhere in that background; I’m going to continue to be a stubborn mule in my opinion here. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And in fact, I’ve looked. I can’t find anything that is obviously proprietary in this image. No obvious element that is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

---

There's a fair chance the NWS could sort out the issues of fact here (though presumably not the issues of law). Has anyone made any effort to contact them? - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t. Will defer to someone else on that one. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You might want to ask the VRT to contact them WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutral pending response from the NWS. I emailed this today: Hi there, I was wondering about the copyright status of some older images you have, for the purposes of using them on Wikipedia. [3] - here is the link in question. You said a "special thanks to Jeff Sisson". Does Sisson hold the copyright to these older images? Or, because they're hosted on the NWS servers, are the images now in the public domain? The copyright status has come up in an article, and I figured the best place to check would be to email your office. I understand that NWS has a policy since 2009 that members of the public submitting their own photos to NWS agree to release their images into the public domain. Does that apply retroactively? Or were these images published after that 2009 disclaimer? Thanks so much for the assistance. Apologies if this is a bit wonky and technical, but the most heated discussions on Wikipedia are typically wonky and technical. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we don't know if the policy is "since 2009", it could have been their policy since setting up the website. Consigned (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Like I said earlier. Unwritten rules. Not every NWS office posts their criteria on all their alerts. Especially in the south. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink, has the weather service responded yet? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Not yet. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Whenever the weather service replies to your email @Hurricanehink, please indicate it and preferably quote the email itself. Please. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The reply-

Sorry for the tardy reply...but not sure if what you state as NWS policy is the actual policy. 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.

HOWEVER - that said - we have moved this question several "rungs up the ladder" to get a more definite answer. I'll let you know as soon as I get a response.

FYI - the link you shared is awfully old and was replaced many years ago. This one is much better: https://www.weather.gov/arx/ccy

Todd Rieck

NWS La Crosse

So no answer yet. Will update when I hear back. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a potentially damaging blow here: climate.gov FAQ says ”If an image or other asset has a specific copyright or credit to an individual or group other than NOAA, you should obtain permission directly from the source”. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hurricanehink. This suggests to me that they don't have a process for submitters of imagery to give up their IP rights (e.g. via licensing), therefore images credited to people who aren't US Government employees would not be PD. Consigned (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

But @Consigned, I think you failed to read my comment below. If you look at the NWS Norman FAQ (which I have linked), they do have it written that the copyright status IS clearly indicated. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, the NWS does host copyrighted content and I’d be fine with adding such a warning to the NWS template. But the NWS does clearly label any non-free content. So it is also fine (in my opinion anyway) to pretty much assume the status quo in that it is assumed to be the public domain unless it is indicated otherwise. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The only terms listed is they request that whoever took the photo be attributed (which is usually the National Weather Service). So even if it’s assumed copyrighted, that statement alone would still qualify as free content since that would be essentially the equivalent of a CC-BY license. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from the "rungs up the ladder" mentioned in the email. I was assuming based on the FAQ and links above that the terms of contributing photos included the option to give up copyright (if such a thing is possible), but the email suggests that this isn't in place. If the contributor is not explicitly giving up their copyright when contributing the photo, the FAQ/disclaimers would be not be valid. Consigned (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect @Consigned; I don’t think the United States government is going to lie about the copyright (or lack thereof) of a picture. Let’s remember, we are talking about the United States, not North Korea. Our government isn’t that dishonest. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

All I’m implying is that we’ve already got a site indicating that the NWS does indeed disclose whenever a picture is copyrighted, and we have evidence of them doing so. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I initially agreed with you, but the email response from the NWS suggests that our interpretation is not correct. I think we need to wait for a response from "up the ladder" to make a firm decision. Consigned (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Game changer. Found this on NWS Norman FAQ. “If the photos are copyrighted (those photos are labeled as such), you will need to get written permission from the copyright holder. Otherwise, you can use the photo without express permission, provided that you give credit to the source of the picture, usually the National Weather Service“. Finally a written statement from the National Weather Service proving that they DO indicate whenever something is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There’s your evidence @Rlandmann. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well this completely changes the entire conversation. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 05:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to quote WeatherWriter here (his words are italicized). He said ”That website right there (referring to a event summary website that actively indicates pictures that are copyrighted but doesn’t actually show the policy of doing so) basically shuts down your whole argument as it is clear NWS does indeed indicate pre-2009 photos IF they are or are not copyrighted.” But I’m going to take his comments one step further. This not only shuts down @Rlandmann‘s argument. This throws Rlandmann’s argument completely out the window. This is actual proof that the weather service DOES have a policy of indicating copyright status whenever it is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)