The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Although this box set contains multiple non-free cover arts (and thus cannot be moved to Commons), someone could take a photo of the box set and release the photo under a free license, per
WP:FREER.
JohnCWiesenthal (
talk)
17:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This is a
G12 that was challenged by the uploader after I initially deleted the image. The image is from the web site of the United States National Weather Service. (
source page). US Federal works are automatically public domain. But in this case, the image is not the work of the agency or one of its employees. It is provided by a person named Jeff Sisson as acknowledged in the image gallery credits. The basis for this image being public domain is
this disclaimer page which states that anybody donating photos agrees to release it as public domain. The oddity about the page is that it for the Sioux Falls, SD weather forecast office as can be seen on the page, the navigation breadcrumb trail, and URL. There is no corresponding disclaimer for the La Crosse, WI office which is where this image is from. The language of the disclaimer covers the National Weather Service with no reference to a specific office. Discussion about the status of this image is needed. If kept, the licensing will need to be corrected as this is not PD as a UD government work, but is PD because the author (Jeff Sisson) has made it so.
Whpq (
talk)
18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep – The Commons has had this debate several times before, hence why
Template:PD-NWS exists separately from
Template:PD-USGov-NOAA (
NOAA is the parent organization of NWS). On the PD-NWS template, there is actually a perfect example of why NWS images are PD.
File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg (currently in use on
Tornadoes of 2022) was
nominated for deletion on the Commons on grounds it wasn't PD as it wasn't taken by an NWS employee. To note, the image has a large watermark over it, but not a copyright symbol. That deletion discussion determined it was indeed public domain. In fact, I was actually the editor who question it in the first place only because of the watermark. The statement holds up. If I spent more time digging, I could probably find several more deletion discussions regarding the PD-NWS template, but thousands of images exist under it, because NWS allows users who aren't federal employees to submit images into the public domain. Either way, this is an unwatermarked image on weather.gov, so there is no question that it is public domain. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
WeatherWriter: Thanks for the information. I was not aware of this. My encounters with other federal agency web sites do not have contributor photos released as PD. This nomination is withdrawn as the main concern was the applicability of the PD license. --
Whpq (
talk)
19:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was the person who originally tagged this as F9, based on the contributor's (wrong) choice of copyright tag. And like
Whpq, I did not know that the NWS has this condition for external contributions.
That said, we do not yet know the terms under which Jeff Sissoon contributed his photos. (Archive.org seems temporarily down as I'm typing this.) From one of the Commons cases linked by
User:WeatherWriter above, I can see that the earliest archive date of that policy is 2015.
If we can establish that Sisoon contributed his photos after 13 May 2009, then we should keep
Because we cannot prove either when these terms came into force, nor when Sisson made his contribution or under what terms, we cannot just assume that this condition has always existed, and we must delete
Update: I just realised that the PD-NWS template at Commons documents this disclaimer existing as early as 13 May 2009
[1] -- so that's our new baseline. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Update #2: archive.org is back, so here are the dates we can be certain of:
The Commons' own PD-NWS template is a secondary source that mentions this arrangement existing since at least 13 May 2009
according to its history
Jeff Sisson's contribution to the NWS was made sometime before 19 September 2015
earliest capture on archive.org, but crucially to this discussion, we do not know when. Other submissions on the same page date back as early as 2006, and Sisson's contribution is nestled amongst ones made in 2008, but unfortunately, the submissions aren't in chronological order either.
Unless we can establish (a) when NWS received Sisson's contributions and (b) what terms existed at that time, we cannot prove that this is a free image. --
Rlandmann (
talk)
02:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As a note, older photographs were not taken by the NWS until they started their website. That has been the disclaimer for their website forever, meaning all photos are PD unless noted. This debate really came because it was uploaded to Wikipedia and not the Commons. This is a Commons debate which has already been solved. So my !vote remains the same as this is a PD image and I would have uploaded to the Commons myself and I will probably export it or upload it later this evening to the Commons as a public domain image. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I hear what you're saying, but as far as I've been able to tell, we don't have any actual evidence for this disclaimer being part of the NWS website "forever", only since 13 May 2009. Do you have anything that proves otherwise?
The Commons tag makes perfect sense for any images that were uploaded after that date, but before that date, we can't know what terms it was uploaded under. And in this case, we simply don't know when Sisson uploaded his photo.--
Rlandmann (
talk)
02:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.