Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fog Bowl 1988.jpg: Difference between revisions

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fog_Bowl_1988.jpg

"Image courtesy of NFL.com" Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: See the licensing template, which specifically addresses "courtesy of" images hosted on National Weather Service servers, stating in part:

“

"However, the NWS sites also host non-NWS images which have been submitted by individuals: these are generally shown as "Courtesy of ...". Such images have explicitly been released to the public domain by the copyright owner as part of the upload process...The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise..."

”

Thus, this image became public domain once it was hosted on National Weather Service servers without a specific copyright notice. An example of images hosted on National Weather Service servers that have their copyright held can be found here, with the annotation shown. The page hosting this image has no specific copyright annotation, only the "courtesy of" tag referred to in the licensing template. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK I withdraw then. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Keep per Ks0stm. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Fog Bowl 1988.jpg

The last deletion request of this file in December 2010 was withdrawn on the basis of the wording of the {{PD-NWS}} template, which we now know to be flawed. (See this recent DR for details.)

But this image in particular is credited by the NWS to NFL.com. The original image can be found here (you might need to click/swipe through to image 20/20 to find it.)

Unsurprisingly, the NFL's copyright policy is long, detailed, and restrictive. The version in force at the time this file was uploaded to Commons is archived here and says (among very many other things):

"We own or license all copyright rights in the text, images, photographs, video, audio, graphics, user interface, and other content provided on the Services, and the selection, coordination, and arrangement of such content (whether by us or by you), to the full extent provided under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, you are prohibited from copying, reproducing, modifying, distributing, displaying, performing or transmitting any of the contents of the Services for any purposes, and nothing otherwise stated or implied in the Services confers on you any license or right to do so." (emphasis mine)

Without any evidence of permission where the NFL transferred their copyright of this photo into the public domain, we can't keep this file. Rlandmann (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

•  Keep: (1) This is not an NFL photo. Per NFL.com, this is a photograph by the Associated Press. So the NFL.com copyright rules do not apply, meaning the entire deletion reasoning does not even apply to this image. (2) According to the archived disclaimer at the bottom of the webpage where this image originates, NWS states, “ The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise.” For the “unless specifically annotated otherwise” part: if/when copyrighted work is provided to the NWS, they appropriately make it known that it is copyrighted (example, see the “Tornado Photos” tab of this NWS webpage). In short, this is a public domain photograph and the previous deletion request regarding {{PD-NWS}} should be upheld. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, look again. If you scroll through the 20 images in the gallery on the NFL website, you'll see that the various images in there are credited to a variety of different sources, including the AP, the NFL, and various individually named photographers. This image is number 20/20 in the carousel, and is specifically credited "NFL". FWIW, during my research, I also checked the AP archive, but it isn't in there. (Not that we can assume that ever AP photo ever is in there, but for this image, it means that there's nothing there that contradicts the NFL identifying itself as the owner of the photo).

  In any case, we now have evidence that "specific annotation" on weather.gov can indeed take the form of a simple "Courtesy of" caption.

  I'd say that at this point, the onus is on anyone who wants to keep this image to reach out to the NFL and ask them if they ever released this into the public domain. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is not evidence to me. That is just you trying to disregard precedent in my opinion. Either way, others may or may not agree with me and that is fine. I know it is in the public domain, so that is what matters. Whether the Commons keeps a public domain, free to use photograph or get rid of it is not my problem. I presented my case and explained how it is public domain. Up to the closing administrator in the end to decide, not either of us. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Speedy delete; even though it isn’t an NFL photo; it is still an image from a source with a known copyright policy. The Associated Press is still very strict.WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Regardless of whether it came from the NFL or the AP; it’s still copyrighted. The only difference would be who the copyright owner is. My speedy delete vote still stands. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  This at least comes close multiple criteria for speedy deletion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I see three different things that warrant speedy deletion with this: F1 (clear copyright violation); F2 (fair use content); and F6 (license laundering) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  If I knew how; I’d probably tag it for speedy deletion myself. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sure; but do you concur that this image originally belonged to the NFL, not the AP? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Regardless of which one; it is still a clear copyright violation. F1 for sure. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Personally; the NWS credited it to the NFL, so I concur that it’s probably the NFL that is the copyright owner; even if the AP took it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just added a speedy delete tag too. Based on the high likelihood of F1 criteria being met. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the website it was found on leads to a 404 error. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence that the Associated Press, a for profit news/photojournalism company, tends to release their photos for hire into the public domain? If you can’t find evidence that they routinely do that, why should we believe that this one was? We don’t get to trust (random commons user) or even an organization like the NWS - unless there is proof the AP (or NFL, if they bought the copyright to it from AP) released it into the public domain, it is not such just because you want it to be and someone who didn’t own the copyright published it online claiming it was.

  Otherwise, under your ideas, I would be able to take any photo I find anywhere (online or offline) and post it on a website saying “the photos on this website are public domain unless specified otherwise”, and magically make those public domain even if I didn’t own the copyright? Berchanhimez (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  No I don’t. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have zero evidence that they released it into the public domain. None. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - enough of a question over its copyright status. Whether it was credited to the AP or the NFL doesn't matter - neither organization routinely releases images they take into the public domain. So absent proof of this image's public domain status, it should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WeatherWriter Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  User:Yann deleted it per F1 speedy deletion criterion. This discussion probably needs to be closed since the image is already deleted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Update: the speedy deletion was reverted; and this discussion has been reopened. Pinging all involved editors (except the one who reopened it) and a few more @Berchanhimez @Rlandmann @Sir MemeGod @WeatherWriter @ChrisWx @Hurricanehink @Jmabel @Ks0stm @Jameslwoodward @Pieter Kuiper WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

   Strong delete - because it is unlikely that this has been expressly released into the public domain. This supersedes my previous speedy vote. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even if this isn’t a copyvio; precautionary principle definitely applies. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Neutral I’m acknowledging WeatherWriter’s argument, but the NFL is real touchy about there copyrights, so I can’t give a support to keep or delete. ChessEric (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedily deleted by user:Yann for meeting F1 and F6 speedy deletion criteria. Non admin closure. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I reverted my closure. Yann (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Then we should assume that this discussion has been reopened. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment When was this photo published? Did it include a copyright notice or was the copyright renewed? If it was published in 1988 without notice or renewal it could be PD per COM:HIRTLE (specifically {{PD-US-1978-89}}). If published after 1 March 1989 it would still be copyrighted (I agree with commenters above that material from AP or NFL hosted by NWS is not automatically PD). Consigned (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Update: added vote delete below Consigned (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  The bigger question first would be whether it was registered with the copyright office within five years. Even if it was published prior to March 1, 1989; it would still be non-free if registered by March 1, 1994. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  And to add to @WestVirginiaWX (now @Hurricane Clyde) comment: it is likely to be very difficult to determine whether or not it was published within that three month window and not registered. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Good question, and I've put in a bit of research time to get an answer. Web sources don't help much, so I've tested the hypothesis that this photo appeared in newspaper coverage of the time.

  I checked the top 100 hits for contemporary coverage of this game on newspapers.com. The hits covered 61 separate papers, some of which ran coverage on multiple pages and/or over multiple days. Most of the newspapers I checked ran a photo from the Associated Press (not surprisingly; one example[1]), and a few ran a different one from the UPI newswire.

  But none ran this photo, and it's probably worth keeping in mind that this is possibly the least visually interesting or newsworthy photo taken of that game.

  If anyone wants to keep this photo on the grounds of its copyright not being properly registered, it's now over to you (per COM:ONUS) to show where this photo was published between December 31, 1988 and March 1, 1989. We can then investigate its registration status together. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment — NOTE: The NWS general disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  We are talking about the lawsuit-happy NFL though. Just saying. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  TBH, that shouldn't be relevant. The principle at play is whether we can be sure, beyond significant doubt, that the copyright owner surrendered their rights to the image, not "what can we get away with?"

  That's probably the part that has dismayed me the most about these discussions. Even before I decided to take a close look at this chaos, a doctrine had emerged that "Getty might get mad with us, we'd better respect their copyrights" while at the same time, being quite happy to ignore the rights of less powerful and less aggressive people and organisations, whose images the NWS captioned exactly the same way for the most part.

  It's even more problematic when some of them are small professional or semi-professional photographers trying to make some kind of income out of their images and whom a false public domain assertion here has far greater capacity to harm than the likes of Getty. Legal arguments aside, "can we get away with it?" is a wholly unethical position. (Not directed at you, Hurricane Clyde, but at a way of thinking that has emerged around these images). --Rlandmann (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I know it shouldn’t be relevant. But I decided to put that statement about the “lawsuit-happy NFL” because WeatherWriter continues to claim that the general disclaimer is enough; which is clearly and unambiguously not the case. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore @WeatherWriter; they renominated the file. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete No evidence that this is PD (taken by US Government employee, or published before 1 March 1989 without notice/registration/renewal {{PD-US-1978-89}}). Consigned (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)