Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg

This file was initially tagged by WeatherWriter as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per the NWS Public Domain template, Thus, all images on NWS servers are public domain (including "Courtesy of ..." and “Photo by ...” images) unless specifically stated otherwise through a copyright watermark. This specifically has a watermark on the image, therefore it is not in the public domain and is copyrighted. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is more complex than that. The image is watermarked with attribution information only, and I would say that that is not enough to claim copyright given the plain language of the disclaimer at [1] (notwithstanding the template). But that disclaimer seems to only apply to the Sioux Falls, SD office (see URL and header). The correct disclaimer is [2], and provides that "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise", but I don't see anything telling the uploaders that they are dedicating the image to the public domain... —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is assumed through the upload process. In the first disclaimer link you sent: “By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain.” All the NWS offices speak for the NWS, as they are just location-based offices. Here was a previous discussion involving NWS webpage copyrighted images: [3]. The reason that image was deleted was due to it having a copyright watermark. It is rare to have a “unless specifically noted otherwise” instance on NWS webpages. this one for 1979 tornadoes is a rare exception. But looking at this web page for some 2014 tornadoes (deletion example from above), some of the images have a watermark. Some do not. NWS allows copyrighted and public domain images to be submitted. Any image with a watermark (or the rare “noted otherwise cases”) are not public domain, while any images without a watermark are considered public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mdaniels5757 — You may be right. Hopefully this get’s closed soon so a verdict for these type of images. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with keeping this photo. It came directly from NWS Wichita event page, so its public domain. ChessEric (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: An attribution watermark is not an explicit claim of copyright, and per the NWS T&C, it can be reasonably assumed that the photographer understood that his work was going to become PD. —holly {chat} 00:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph was taken by Mike Umscheid in the United States in 2022. His website is currently under maintenance (scheduled to complete on August 30), but up to very recently, this image was published there and offered for sale.

Umscheid is or was an employee of NWS Dodge City,[4] but there is no claim that he took this photo while performing his official duties, and the fact that he offers the image for sale suggests that he was taking photos on his own time. There is no reason to think that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

This image was originally uploaded to the Commons under a CC-0 tag, although there was no evidence that this ever applied to this image. Another user then re-tagged it to keep under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

1. when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
2. the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Wichita office).

The image has already been through one DR, with the closing admin concluding that "it can be reasonably assumed that the photographer understood that his work was going to become PD"

Since then, we've learned that:

• the idea that the NWS labels copyright-protected images with an explicit copyright notice is almost never true A20
• the terms and conditions that place some public submissions to the Sioux City office are only one of many such conflicting terms and conditions scattered around weather.gov A3
• NWS offices solicit images that they can use by permission of the photographer. eg

Without clearer evidence that Umscheid intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Keep — Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the NWS webpage with this image, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...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." On the Commons, the NWS 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. Public domain images can be used for any purpose and may be used commercially for profit, so arguments about it being sold are not valid in my view. Based on the NWS disclaimer, the recently closed DR, and the previous DR for this image, I believe it should be kept. WeatherWriter (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And @WeatherWriter, they renominated the file. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it’s being sold for a minimum of $50 (USD) is an even bigger indicator of its unfree status. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week now with no one except myself commenting: I am going to ping some more people into this discussion; to hopefully get a better consensus. Pinging all or most people who have participated in these deletion requests. @Sir MemeGod @Ks0stm @Hurricanehink @Consigned @Berchanhimez @ChessEric @Jmabel @Yann Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Offering an image for sale is not evidence of unfree status. Alamy and Getty do this all the time, when they think they can get away with it. Also, I know a photographer (contractor, not government employee) who does government projects where he signs papers putting the photos in the public domain, but that doesn't mean he won't gladly making money selling excellent prints of his work, including signed prints.

@Hurricane Clyde: is that selling about physical copies (in which case I really think it isn't evidence at all) or about rights to use the image online (in which case it might be weak evidence, per my remark about Alamy and Getty)? - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s physical copies. But you’d think it would be less than $50. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like @Jmabel said, selling photos is not evidence that it is unfree. For evidence opposite that idea, we have to turn to Commons:Deletion requests/File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg, where the AP is falsely claiming copyright over a free-to-use (CC 2.0 or PD) image and they are selling said free-to-use photograph. The big kicker is that the AP also have the wrong creation date for this photograph, which they are selling. Part of the PD (and/or Commons's allowed CC licenses) is that the photos can be used for whatever purposes you desire (if CC, as long as attribution is given). That includes reselling them for a profit. So the selling of photographs is not evidence whatsoever of a photo's copyright status, as clearly seen with the AP's fake claim on the 1974 Xenia tornado's photograph. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment -- the creation date is right; the anomaly is easily demonstatably due to automated timezone conversions. I'll come back to that one in due course.

What the two cases do have in common is that whoever wants to keep either of these images has been unable to furnish any evidence that the copyright owner ever gave up their rights. In the case of the Xenia image, the folks who want to keep it can't even show whether it's PD or CC-BY... But anyway, that's another story. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter; I am well aware of what copy fraud is. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Just offering an explanation that when I've noted images for sale in DRs, I'm not saying this is proof against release into the PD, but when it's a pro or semi-pro photographer's image, to my mind it's strongly suggestive that the photographer had/has commercial interest in the image and is prima facie less likely to have agreed to give the image away. I think this is substantially different from a case where a photographer is working under a government contract in the first place.

Anyway, the outreach to photographers continues, but a couple of recent angry replies tends to confirm my hunch. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have asked this person on X about whether the image is copyrighted. I will give my answer once he replies. ChessEric (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nomination. The conversation above about whether image distributors such as Getty only sell copyrighted images or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether this image has sufficient proof of it's public domain (or freely licensed) status, which has not been given. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know how heated those discussions can get. @Rlandmann was cussed out in one email over an NWS copyright question. That image got speedily deleted. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion and the linkd RfC. --Krd 15:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]