Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fog Bowl 1988.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

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

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 (TCG) 04:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Ks0stm. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The last deletion request of this file in December 2010 was withdrawn on the basis of the wording of the {{PD-NWS}} template, which we now know to be flawed.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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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

I reverted my closure. Yann (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should assume that this discussion has been reopened. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentNOTE: 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)[reply]
    We are talking about the lawsuit-happy NFL though. Just saying. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Furthermore @WeatherWriter; they renominated the file. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]