Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg: Difference between revisions

File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg

Per discussion on w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Copyright of the famous 1997 "Dead Man Walking" image?. It appears this image is not in the publication of the NWS linked in the source. Its upload hinged on the assumption that this image is public domain because other images by the same photographer had sent images that were featured in the NWS publication. Earliest known publishing of this image is in a Time magazine article. Contrary to the template used on the page upon upload, Scott Beckwith was working under Jarrell Farm Supply and not the National Weather Service, and this image was thus not created by an official of the United States government under the course of their official duties. Per COM:PCP, and with the copyright ambiguity, this should be deleted. Chlod (say hi!) 12:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless an actual source other than "here's a PDF that doesn't have the image" can be found. -- Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as above people noted. The photograph MIGHT be on the PDF, I’ll have to look through it again. If it is, I’ll change my vote. 12.74.221.43 03:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Follow up: it’s on the PDF but clearly states that the guy wasn’t a NWS worker or working on behalf of the NWS. Still support deletion. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E 05:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have not checked PDF, but per 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E‘s statement that it is on the PDF, PD-NWS applies, which is the copyright template over PD-USGov, which was the original uploaded template. PD-NWS states that images on their products may not be from the US government, however, users are aware when giving NWS images that they become public domain. If what 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E said is true that it is on the PDF, it is, in fact, a public domain image. This policy / template statement has been upheld in the past as well when challenged. Therefore, per 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E, this image is a Keep for me. WeatherWriter (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Of course, I made sure to scan the whole PDF prior to filing this nomination. I even extracted all images with Adobe Acrobat to verify that I didn't miss anything with eye scanning. This exact image, as uploaded to Commons, is not present anywhere in the PDF. I guess my initial nomination statement didn't make this abundantly clear enough, nor was the uploader's statement saying While the image itself is not on the publication in the file description page become clear enough. If we're talking about the image on page 5, it is an entirely different photo, which doesn't even show multiple vortices. This image is not on the PDF, contrary to what IP says.

  @WeatherWriter: I'd expect more due diligence prior to !voting on a deletion request, and that you don't take what others say at face value as truth. Chlod (say hi!) 06:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I apologize for assuming good faith. Not trying to start anything here, but for real, I assumed good faith that what the other user said was true. Turns out it was not true. I have struck through my comment above. WeatherWriter (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E, please state which page you found the image on. No other editors have been able to find it in the PDF. Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)