Commons:Requests for comment/Third-party images published by the National Weather Service
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The answer to all three questions, based on consensus, has been a clear no. COM:PS and the template itself have been updated. A review of the remaining PD-NWS images should be conducted. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 13:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The answer to all three questions, based on consensus, has been a clear no. COM:PS and the template itself have been updated. A review of the remaining PD-NWS images should be conducted. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
Summary
[edit]This RfC is to gather opinions on three questions that frequently arise around the copyright and licensing status of images sourced from the National Weather Service (NWS):
- Q.1 whether the general disclaimer on weather.gov can be relied on as evidence of permission that images created by members of the general public and other third parties that were published by the NWS were released into the public domain.
- Q.2 whether fourth-party attributions (for example, by media companies republishing an image from weather.gov) can be relied on as evidence of permission, either solely or in combination with the above.
- Q.3 whether a specific footer found on some weather.gov pages (example) can be understood as a free license.
The objective is to:
- provide clarification on what kinds of images from weather.gov and its predecessor sites are permissible on the Commons
- provide a centralised discussion that can be referenced in current and future Deletion Requests
- if consensus is that the general disclaimer cannot be relied on in this way
- add a section to COM:PRS based on this discussion
- inform a redesign of the {{PD-NWS}} template based on this discussion
Background
[edit]The National Weather Service (NWS) is a US federal government agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). As such, materials produced by the NWS are ineligible for copyright, and its websites are a valuable source for weather-related imagery in the public domain, including weather maps and charts, infographics, and photos of the aftermath of severe weather events.
The NWS has over 120 regional offices which publish content under the weather.gov domain. Prior to around 10-15 years ago, these offices published their content under noaa.gov. This is relevant because not all images were migrated across to new pages on weather.gov, and many that we have here on the Commons are now only known from their previous locations as archived on archive.org. This RfC should be understood also to apply to images sourced from the NWS on any of those pages that linked to the weather.gov general disclaimer
The US National Weather Service publishes a large amount of third-party content. This content comes from media outlets, stock imagery licensors, and submissions by the general public.
Since 2009, contibutors to the Commons have uploaded third-party images sourced from weather.gov and other NWS websites under the rationale that:
- R.1 the general disclaimer says "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." (The precise wording has changed slightly over time, but has remained essentially the same since at least 2009).
- R.2 a disclaimer for public submissions of photos was found on a page by the Sioux City regional office that 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."
These rationales became enshrined in the language of the {{PD-NWS}} template in 2009.[1]
Historically, Commons contributors relying on these rationales understood the disclaimer at R.2 to apply to all images submitted by members of the public to the NWS. This was held to be true in multiple DR discussions notwithstanding the passive nature of the disclaimer and the great unlikelihood that a member of the public sharing an image with the NWS via email or social media could be reasonably expected to be aware of the existence of this page.
Research in 2024 has uncovered that at different times and simultaneously, various regional NWS offices of the National Weather Service have held contests or other public outreach exercises soliciting images from the public under a very wide range of terms and conditions. A few of these explicitly made release into the public domain a condition of submission, most did not, and at least one was ambiguous. Sets of terms and conditions discovered so far are set out below.
A3. NWS public submission processes found and documented so far
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A3. NWS public submission processes found and documented so far:
|
An email from the present author (User:Rlandmann) to the NWS Sioux City office seeking clarification of whether these conditions should be understood to apply to all image submissions by the public to the NWS not only resulted in the NWS legal team stating that the disclaimer should not be understood this way, but resulted in the NWS Sioux City office removing any reference to the public domain from their disclaimer.
A5. Excerpt from email from NWS Sioux Falls to User:Rlandmann
"... Our apologies for the delay in a response, but we wanted to run your question through our legal team before replying. No, not all images credited to members of the general public are in the public domain on weather.gov. In some cases, the credited image creator has only given permission for the National Weather Service to use the image on NOAA websites.
The disclaimer page that you cited in your email was created specifically for a prior photo submission contest and since has been used occasionally when requesting images from the public taken during specific storm events. It is the opinion of the legal team that they "do not believe a disclaimer, alone, can be used to transfer a copyright holder's ownership interest to NOAA or to abandon the copyright interest to the public domain". Since then, we have removed the questionable language on the disclaimer page...."
Reliance on this rationale (R.2) therefore depends being able to establish with reasonable certainty that a particular image was submitted under a particular set of terms and conditions. Examples where we can establish such a connection are extremely rare, but do exist, such as at the photo page previously published by the La Crosse, WI regional office.
The question remains about how to interpret the words of the general disclaimer quoted at R.1.
Q.1. Is the NWS general disclaimer evidence of permission?
[edit]The passages in the NWS general disclaimer that relate to third-party content are:
A1. Pertinent sections of the general disclaimer on the weather.gov website:
"The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise..."
and
"Use of Third-Party Data and Products
Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. This third-party information may contain trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features to identify the source of the information. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products."
Historically, contributors relying on R.1 as a rationale for an image being in the public domain have considered the first of these two statements in isolation from the second. A belief has emerged that the words "unless specifically noted otherwise" means that the NWS is making an assertion that all images on their websites that do not have an explicit copyright notice either:
- embedded in them or
- published in their caption
are in the public domain. I'll refer to this as "the historical interpretation" and fortunately, it is very easily testable.
Even assuming that "information" in the context of that passage is even intended to apply to images, there are several problems with this position.
P.1.1. The historical interpretation of "unless specifically noted otherwise" is inconsistent with the second passage that states that "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider."
If third-party images are being used by the NWS under licence, then those images are not in the public domain. If they were, then the third parties would not need to license them to the NWS, and indeed could not license them to the NWS.
Read together, the most reasonable interpretation of the disclaimer is that the NWS "specifically notes" images that do not belong to them and which therefore cannot be presumed to be in the public domain.
P.1.2. Direct communications with the NWS to date confirm that the historical interpretation is not how the NWS intends the disclaimer to be read:
A4. Excerpt from email from NWS La Crosse to User:Hurricanehink
"... 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...."
and
A5. Excerpt from email from NWS Sioux Falls to User:Rlandmann
"... Our apologies for the delay in a response, but we wanted to run your question through our legal team before replying. No, not all images credited to members of the general public are in the public domain on weather.gov. In some cases, the credited image creator has only given permission for the National Weather Service to use the image on NOAA websites.
The disclaimer page that you cited in your email was created specifically for a prior photo submission contest and since has been used occasionally when requesting images from the public taken during specific storm events. It is the opinion of the legal team that they "do not believe a disclaimer, alone, can be used to transfer a copyright holder's ownership interest to NOAA or to abandon the copyright interest to the public domain". Since then, we have removed the questionable language on the disclaimer page...."
P.1.3. The historical interpretation is inconsistent with what we can observe the NWS actually doing in practise on their websites.
- P.1.3.1. An easy test of the historical interpretation is to examine photos on NWS websites where we have access to a direct statement of copyright ownership by the copyright owner themselves. We most commonly find this with images sourced to media outlets known to strictly and aggressively protect their IP, including Getty Images and the AP.
- There is not a single known instance where the NWS has published such an image with an explicit copyright notice in its caption. Instead, they are generally captioned "Courtesy of..." or "Photo by..." exactly the same way that the NWS captions almost all third-party images.
- I've collected some examples here, including a Getty Image published by the NWS with no caption at all:
A7. Examples of how third-party images known from external sources are credited on weather.gov
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A7. Examples of how third-party images known from external sources are credited on weather.gov
|
- P.1.3.2. The converse test is also helpful. The NWS publishes images from many different sources on its websites. By far, the most common attributions they use are "Courtesy of..." and "Photo by..." These attributions are used for all kinds of images, ranging from those where we have access to a direct statement of copyright ownership from the copyright owner (as at P.1.3.1 above) through to images very clearly in the public domain (such as those produced by NWS offices or other US Government agencies).
- Here's a summary, with links to examples:
A20. Survey of image attributions on NWS websites across different copyright and licensing scenarios
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A7. Examples of how third-party images known from external sources are credited on weather.gov
|
- P.1.3.3. Logically, there are a limited number of scenarios that fit observable reality:
- P.1.3.3.1. The historical interpretation of the NWS general disclaimer is correct and Getty Images, the AP, and various other media agencies have been uncharacteristically generous (or incompetent) and released all these images (and many more) into the public domain, while still offering them for license elsewhere.
- P.1.3.3.2. The historical interpretation of the NWS general disclaimer is correct and NWS website maintainers are universally incompetent and get this wrong every single time they publish such an image.
- P.1.3.3.3. The historical interpretation of the NWS general disclaimer is incorrect, and absence of an explicit copyright statement in a caption or embedded in an image is does not amount to an assertion by the NWS that an image is in the public domain.
- P.1.3.4. More generally, the lack of consistency summarized at A.20 suggests two scenarios:
- P.1.3.4.1. The historical interpretation of the NWS general disclaimer is correct, but NWS website maintainers apply it so inconsistently and haphazardly that whatever the intention of the disclaimer, it is such an unreliable guide to the copyright status of an image that the general disclaimer cannot provide evidence of permission.
- P.1.3.4.2. The historical interpretation of the NWS general disclaimer is incorrect, the style of attributions (or lack of attributions) are not generally assertions by the NWS about the copyright status of third-party images, and again cannot provide evidence of permission.
Q.2. Are fourth-party image attributions evidence of permission?
[edit]Sometimes, images published on NWS websites are also found on various reliable sources (mostly media outlets), under a variety of attributions.
In some recent DR discussions, a line of reasoning has emerged that if such outlets credit the NWS or NOAA as the source of the image, this amounts to the outlet asserting that the image is in the public domain. For example:
A22. Examples of reliable sources crediting images sourced from the NWS to the NWS
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A.22 Examples of reliable sources crediting images sourced from NWS to NWS
|
The problem with this reasoning is that:
P.2.1. Such attributions demonstrably fail to credit the creator of the image (even when this information is available at the source). They can be considered a reliable source only for where the journalist or editor found the image, nothing more (and do not actually purport to provide more than this).
Q.3. Is the footer on some NWS pages a free license for any images on that page?
[edit]Many NWS pages[20] include the following footer text:
A21. Footer found on many weather.gov web pages
"Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged!
Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site."
In some recent DR discussions, a line of reasoning has emerged that these words amount to an assertion by the NWS that all the content on the page, including any images published on it, is in the public domain.
Other than "News information" seeming to be an odd way to refer to images, the main problem with this line of reasoning is:
P.3.1. This footer does not appear to invite reuse by anyone other than "media" outlets, or implictly, for any purpose other than news reporting. It certainly does not state or imply that such content is in the public domain per se, only that media outlets have permission to use it (and are even encouraged to do so).
Discussion
[edit] | An editor had requested comment from other editors for this discussion. The discussion is now closed, please do not modify it. |
Q.1. Is the NWS general disclaimer evidence of permission?
[edit]
Oppose For all the reasons I documented, but most particularly, because this claim doesn't even stack up with observable evidence (P.1.3.4.) --Rlandmann (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Supportspecifically annotated otherwise
”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all NWS webpages. To me, “specifically annotated otherwise
” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark. For that reason, I believe any of the instances of problematic images (i.e. something like Commons:Deletion requests/File:MayfieldKentuckyEF32016.PNG) are one-off instances. The whole disclaimer shouldn’t be discredited or dismissed over a few images (we have found only 1 or 2 actual confirmed instances of this as well) which bluntly most likely slipped through the crack, which we ourselves on the Commons have had happen before (i.e. with a relevant example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tor jreed 091510 A07.jpg). WeatherWriter (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- I am changing my !vote to Weak Oppose. I believe, if coupled with Q.2 below, then it would be valid evidence of permission, however, as a stand-alone with no media/secondary support, it is not enough. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose – The NWS’s own legal team has even said that this is unreliable for third party stuff. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- That second image you mentioned approaches copyvio territory rather than just precautionary principle because it actually has a ©️ watermark on it. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Question for @WeatherWriter: I'm curious about what you make of all the cases where we have unambiguous copyright claims from image owners, but the NWS has simply credited them "Courtesy of..." or "Photo by..." as they usually do for third-party content? I documented eleven such examples in detail at A.7 above. (I stopped at an arbitrary 10 NWS pages, but you and I both know that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other examples of the NWS publishing media images that are all likely under such restrictive terms). Are you claiming that the AP, Getty, and similar outlets have placed these images in the Public Domain? Or do you think the NWS is just really bad (universally bad..!) at following the attribution rules you claim they have set for themselves? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment – I know I’m not WeatherWriter; but I just want to say that places like the AP and Getty rarely (if ever) make any of their works PD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 10:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose based on what I've read. I would err on the side of caution to only including images known to be taken by NWS employees, or otherwise have confirmation that it was released into the public domain. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not generally. First, images that are on NWS servers may have been submitted anytime within the past two to three decades, and may have been submitted by any number of methods (including website form/link, email referred from website, direct email, social media, and others). This makes it impossible to know in most cases what form, disclaimer, or other release a person saw (if any) when they submitted that photograph. Second, while a generic statement such as "images on this website are in the (insert appropriate licensing status) unless stated otherwise" may be appropriate on some websites, that is only the case if there is reason to believe that the person making that statement actually had the rights to make that determination or alternatively that the website has stringent procedures for confirming copyright status and explicitly verifying from the copyright holder before posting. The NWS's policies and procedures do not meet what I would view as the minimum standard of accuracy and rigidity for us to be able to "take their word for it". This is evident in the fact that, since these images/licensing were first brought up here, at least two images that they did not put any disclaimer on whatsoever have been removed from their site and/or clarified - one of them was even hosted in a database that they previously (and still do) claim is only used to host confirmed public domain images.I am willing to consider that there may be exceptions that can be made for certain parts of the website, or for certain situations in which the NWS (or the individual office in question) is posting images that have a more stringent release from their owners. An example of this would be photo submission contests - the rules for those contests specify the method of submission and whether the photographer will be releasing copyright by submitting them to the contest. These exceptions should be handled in individual discussions and do not affect the blanket determination that the PD-NWS tag as previously used is invalid, should be changed/deprecated, and those individual exceptions dealt with either a new tag or an updated PD-NWS tag that explicitly identifies those portions of the website deemed acceptable by individual discussions. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: For anyone looking for examples of such exceptions, I'm aware of only two specific NWS pages where we can make a connection with reasonable certainty between a set of images and a set of T&Cs that place them the Public Domain: [21] and [22]. (We also know of one instance where we can link a specific group of images with a clearly unfree set of terms and conditions: [23]). Other sets of T&Cs that place images in the PD are known, but we have no idea right now which, if any, images were submitted under them. The other point to note is that in the two pages of free images, it's not the general disclaimer that allows us to make that determination, it's the specific, known T&Cs that do. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unreliable. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Hurricanehink and Jeff G. I really don't see how this could be reliable outside of images that were clearly taken by employees of the NWS. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, per OP and Berchanhimez. Relinquishing/abandoning a copyright can only be done through an overt act; a disclaimer is not sufficient. Consigned (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would say no. Evidence collected at Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/PD-NWS review/A25 has shown that the NWS is not reliable when it comes to attribution. Even if those pictures entered public domain due to some technicality, I still think we should courtesy delete any photos that the author did not intend to release into public domain. I'm also concerned that the NWS could be used for license laundering because someone could upload someone else's photo and claim it as their own. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – It says "
Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products.
" The general disclaimer is therefore not evidence of permission because it explains that images on their site from third parties are still licensed by their authors and can't be used without permission from them being obtained. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 05:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Q.2. Are fourth-party image attributions evidence of permission?
[edit]- Oppose These types of sources only say where the image was found, not who owns it. Attempting to use Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" policy to justify the contrary is beyond just a stretch. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support Given the NWS general disclaimer (see my explanation from Q.1 above), it seems clear that RS media outlets are using it. I believe any of the instances of problematic images (i.e. something like Commons:Deletion requests/File:MayfieldKentuckyEF32016.PNG) are one-off instances. To me, the use of RS media attributing NWS as the source seems to be a huge step in proving the PD-nature of images, given they all pass respective editor checks. One outlet claiming a photograph is PD based on NWS would be one thing. But when multiple are saying it, despite us knowing it “isn’t NWS”, that to me, is clearly supporting evidence of the General Disclaimer being valid. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose – It is kinda case dependent. Such images should be more closely looked at. But as a whole; I think such attribution is unreliable. But again, such images should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- @WeatherWriter have you ever thought of several RS media making wrong attributions? This has been the case of some media here, in which various locator maps of Philippine provinces and regions, when used in their online articles, are wrongfully attributed to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia, even if the CC licensing terms require the attribution of the creator/uploader (Wikimedia Commons merely hosts uploaders' original contents). It is likely that some (if not all) RS media may be guilty of either mis-attribution or lazy attribution to NWS only, and they may not be familiar with the intrincacies of the copyright statuses of 3rd party content that NWS sites publish. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have. That said, storm chasers/weather-related photos are often highly scrutinized and copyright strikes/DMCA takedowns happen all the time. Elon Musk himself even had to walk back a statement after getting caught up on his own words regarding an aurora photo by someone. Given RS media is well aware of these facts (as most have contracts with storm chasers to license footage), and the fact they have editorial reviews, it seems unlikely several would mistakenly attribute for the same photo. One time thing is much different than several RS media and/or non-NOAA government agencies doing it over and over again. For example, if you take a look at File:F5 Ruskin Heights, Missouri tornado in Kansas 1957.jpg (and the subsequent ongoing deletion request), several RS media as well as the local county government either give no attribution or attribution to the National Weather Service or File:Niles Park Plaza 1985 tornado.jpg (subsequent deletion request), where a photo supposedly taken by the Ohio Department of Transportation, a branch of the Ohio State Government is attributed, by RS media and funny enough, the actual Ohio State Government to the National Weather Service.
- Could this be more or less a case of mass psychosis and mass mis-attribution? Sure. But there comes a point when one has to look at the numbers and really say "is it actually statistically possible?" There are too many instances of RS/government attributions to the National Weather Service for me to say that it could be a case of mass-misattribution. That is why I will remain keep. Deletion on grounds of Commons:PRP is a lot different than deletion on copyright grounds, which is how I see a lot of the subsequent deletion requests going. There is probably enough for deletion as a precaution, but there is no clear evidence (at least for 95% of the photos in deletion requests) that they are indeed copyrighted, given the shear attribution scale. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we even need to go to the extent of these sources making "wrong attributions" -- they're simply not making claims about copyright ownership that some folks here insist that they are. There's no reason to assume that these sources are doing anything other than citing their source for the image. Claiming more than that on their behalf is simply putting words into their mouths.
- Analogy: Bob publishes a photo and says he got it from Anna. Some time later, Carla, Dave, Edith, and Fred all republish the photo and say they got it from Bob's website. This is not to say that Carla, Dave, Edith, and Fred are making any claim that Bob took the photo or owns the copyright to it.
- Determining copyright and licensing status to the degree of certainty that we require it on the Commons is far more expensive in terms of time and effort than the news cycle typically allows (ask me how I know!) This is especially true for media in the US, who are protected by the US's incredibly generous "fair use" provisions when it comes to reporting news.
- Finally, if any of those outlets believed that the image was in the public domain, the correct attribution would be "Public domain" or none at all, not claiming or implying that the NWS somehow took or owned the picture.
- It's a simple acknowledgement of source, not a claim of ownership. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Forgive me if this seems like a dumb question, but why would the "correct attribution" for a public domain image would be to either say "public domain" or nothing at all? If that is true, then EN-Wiki/the Commons are hypocrites (saying that for the sake of the question)? Pulling a random PD file out here just as random example (File:SPC Mesoscale Discussion 329 — Rolling Fork EF4 tornado.png). That file is a very clear PD photo made by a U.S. government employee under their official duties, yet the Commons attributes it to "Harry Weinman", the employee who made it, even before saying it is a PD photo. The same can be said for a usage of it on EN-Wiki (on w:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado), where the first words under the description/caption say "Harry Weinman", then the Storm Prediction Center, then the URl, and then lastly "public domain" at the very bottom right. If only saying "public domain" or no attribution is the "correct" way to do that, then the Commons/Wikipedia should change formats to have "public domain" be the first thing stated, even before the photographer/creators name. I like your analogy, but there is absolutely no difference between those RS media usages and what EN-Wiki/Commons do besides the EN-Wiki/Commons saying "public domain" after saying the photographer and source. So my question is, is the term "public domain" actually needed with every image, even if it is PD, even though PD means you can use it however you want? WeatherWriter (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, WeatherWriter, I was unclear and omitted an important distinction in the course of drafting and re-drafting that comment. What I intended, and ought to have said, is: if those sources believed that the image was in the public domain and their intention was to indicate authorship and/or ownership of the image, not just where they sourced it.
- So when one of these fourth parties attributes a third-party image to the NWS, the range of possibilities looks something like this:
- They're just telling us where they got the image, not making any assertion about who necessarily created it or owns it (my position, and I'll also appeal to Occam's Razor here)
- They intended to tell us who created it or owns it and they're lazy/rushed/incompetent/wrong (possible, from time to time, but unlikely in general for precisely the reasons you give)
- They intended to tell us who created it or owns it, they've investigated the ownership of the file, and determined that the NWS is the copyright owner (possible under s.105 of the US Copyright Act, but unlikely because we've never seen any evidence of this kind of arrangement, and being able to ascertain that in the bare hours available to file a news story is essentially impossible, and if this truly was the case, we couldn't keep the file anyway because it would be under a copyright owned by the US government.)
- But there's no combination of factors that leads us to an outcome where all of the following intersect:
- a competent, trustworthy media outlet
- intends their captions to assert authorship and/or ownership of an image
- believes an individual or organization relinquished their copyright to an image when they allowed the NWS to publish it
- solely credit the NWS (or NWS + the Commons...) with the image
- Other than human error occurring from time-to-time, at least one of those things must be untrue in each fourth-party attribution. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Forgive me if this seems like a dumb question, but why would the "correct attribution" for a public domain image would be to either say "public domain" or nothing at all? If that is true, then EN-Wiki/the Commons are hypocrites (saying that for the sake of the question)? Pulling a random PD file out here just as random example (File:SPC Mesoscale Discussion 329 — Rolling Fork EF4 tornado.png). That file is a very clear PD photo made by a U.S. government employee under their official duties, yet the Commons attributes it to "Harry Weinman", the employee who made it, even before saying it is a PD photo. The same can be said for a usage of it on EN-Wiki (on w:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado), where the first words under the description/caption say "Harry Weinman", then the Storm Prediction Center, then the URl, and then lastly "public domain" at the very bottom right. If only saying "public domain" or no attribution is the "correct" way to do that, then the Commons/Wikipedia should change formats to have "public domain" be the first thing stated, even before the photographer/creators name. I like your analogy, but there is absolutely no difference between those RS media usages and what EN-Wiki/Commons do besides the EN-Wiki/Commons saying "public domain" after saying the photographer and source. So my question is, is the term "public domain" actually needed with every image, even if it is PD, even though PD means you can use it however you want? WeatherWriter (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Question for @WeatherWriter -- When you say "RS media attributing NWS as the source", you clearly think that "source" means something far beyond "where they sourced the image".
- So, what do you actually mean? Do you think that the journalist is claiming that an on-duty NWS employee created the image? Or that the NWS owns the rights to the image? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I know I’m not WeatherWriter; but I’m going to put my 2c into one of his statements anyway. They said that the correct attribution would be “to either say ‘public domain’ or nothing at all”. I have to somewhat disagree with the second part. A news media organization failing to attribute is not an indication of PD status; as there are some folks who don’t follow copyright laws as well as Commons do; they’re kinda “gun ho cowboy” when it comes to that; and there are also some malicious actors who will deliberately violate copyright and distribute stuff claiming to be PD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 10:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Clyde -- "public domain or nothing at all" was my statement of the correct attribution for indicating ownership (if that's what the media source was aiming for, which they're clearly not.) But I don't think that WeatherWriter has ever distinguished whether they think the attribution line is mean to indicate authorship or rights ownership, hence my question. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I know I’m not WeatherWriter; but I’m going to put my 2c into one of his statements anyway. They said that the correct attribution would be “to either say ‘public domain’ or nothing at all”. I have to somewhat disagree with the second part. A news media organization failing to attribute is not an indication of PD status; as there are some folks who don’t follow copyright laws as well as Commons do; they’re kinda “gun ho cowboy” when it comes to that; and there are also some malicious actors who will deliberately violate copyright and distribute stuff claiming to be PD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 10:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Neutral - if a fourth-party source says that the NWS image is in the public domain, that would back up the claim. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- Support As (in my opinion) the disclaimer covers this, and even if they "worded it wrong", it still was worded that way. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 21:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Never. This is a form of license laundering. There are a few issues to consider here. The first is that the mere fact that others (even reliable sources) have violated copyright and not been caught doing so does not give Commons the ability to do so. The second is that many people may be willing to allow news media to use their photographs for free in cases of public interest such as weather events, even if advance permission was not obtained (i.e. they may notice the copyright violation but they may choose not to take action on it thus giving the news organization an implicit license to use the image). The third and most important in my view is that if the answer to Q1 above is (as I think it will be) that we cannot trust the NWS to be hosting only public domain images in the first place, we can't trust someone who has relied on that more than we trust the NWS to begin with. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would it actually be license laundering since reliable RS sources have been editorially checked/verified? WeatherWriter (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Info: In my opinion it still would be if there isn’t proof of its public domain status. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would it actually be license laundering since reliable RS sources have been editorially checked/verified? WeatherWriter (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment — Depending on this RFC outcome for this point, if it is determined this is not satisfactory for the Commons, a list of NWS-related violations from third-parties RS should be made to help identify which sources may actually be straight up license laundering sources. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would be okay with that. But I still think that this (the status quo) could be considered by at least some people to be a form of license laundering. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unreliable. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Hurricane Clyde. It depends on the particular situation but the licenses for individual files should be confirmed and checked to make there's no license laundering involved. Otherwise they don't belong on Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- No; once again I agree with Berchanhimez that this is effectively license laundering. It's very common to see what we consider Reliable Sources making mistakes like this, taking an incorrect disclaimer at face value. And it's understandable, given that we here on Commons have been making the same mistake for years. Consigned (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – Fourth-party sources may misinterpret copyright status, and do not reflect the intentions of whether the original uploader of the image wanted it to be in the public domain or not. As a result, they are not sufficient evidence of permission. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 05:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- If I may ask, ChrisWx, what if the fourth-party site says "public domain"? At what point would a media outlet saying a photo is directly with the words "public domain" valid? This question also encompasses those, which we have seen appear in these discussions. Should we just automatically assume every media outlet (like CNN, NYT, ect...) did not do their due diligence? WeatherWriter (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter: I still don't think that is sufficient evidence, even if it is from a reputable source such as the ones you mentioned, as we have no evidence from the image creator themselves that the image is in the public domain. We still wouldn't know if their image was intended to be in the public domain or not, whether they actually made contact with its creator, or if they just assumed based on precedent/what's been written elsewhere, and misinterpreted its copyright status. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 06:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- If I may ask, ChrisWx, what if the fourth-party site says "public domain"? At what point would a media outlet saying a photo is directly with the words "public domain" valid? This question also encompasses those, which we have seen appear in these discussions. Should we just automatically assume every media outlet (like CNN, NYT, ect...) did not do their due diligence? WeatherWriter (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Q.3. Is the footer on some NWS pages a free license for any images on that page?
[edit]- Oppose This isn't even consistent with what the footer itself says! At best, it's permission to use under very limited conditions. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support
This especially is a huge thing. If this is compounded with the general disclaimer (see my Support reasoning in Q.1) and/or any media usage citing NWS (see my Support reasoning in Q.2), then it seems very clear the photograph would be in the PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)}}
- Striking my original support. I oppose this now. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT! – as @Rlandmann points out; this isn’t even consistent with what the footer itself says! The footer only implies permission to the news media. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, I would err on the side of caution and limit tags/claims of PD to when they are explicit, such as identifying a NWS employee taking the image. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, This I would definitely take cautiously, and as HurricaneHink said, the note has to be explicit. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 21:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. Not a sufficiently free, nor sufficiently explicit, licensure/release. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unreliable. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose No, at least from my reading of the footer it seems like more like a general statement that wasn't specifically tailored to any given image. There's a lot of websites with similar licenses that exist purely to cover their own asses, but the licenses should be taken with a grain of salt outside of that. The fact is that most websites that reuse other people work don't have the staff or legal team to check and confirm the license of everything they post on their site. So there's no reason to assume general licenses like this one are valid. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, this would not be considered a valid copyright statement or license on any website. Consigned (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely no. This is now actually a moot point now that the NWS has removed the disclaimer. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Did you typo @Ixfd64? Because you forgot the “n” in “no”. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok you fixed it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Did you typo @Ixfd64? Because you forgot the “n” in “no”. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ixfd64: For reference, it is not a moot point. It still exists at the bottom of several NWS webpages including: [24][25]. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – This footer was placed to explain that the use of the information from NWS news stories was encouraged by the media, or other news sites, in order to spread its word, not that all images on that site are free. Further, it also doesn't reflect the intentions of the uploader and the copyright status of their images upon uploading them to the NWS. As a result, this is not a free license for images on those pages. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 05:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.