Commons:Deletion requests/Third-party photos hosted on weather.gov 2024-10-24

• File:2014ColumbiaMSEF3.jpg
• File:PraderScott Rochelle.jpg
• File:2015MountHopeTornado.jpg
• File:Weather-related traffic collision on the Kansas Turnpike.JPG
• File:Wall cloud near Abingdon, Illinois June 5, 2010.JPG
• File:Dunklin co4.jpg
• File:Tornado in Kansas May 10, 2010.jpg
• File:EF2CarpenterWyomingTornado2017.jpg
• File:El Reno, OK supercell from above 2013-05-31.jpg

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done under the rationale that:

• a process used for a time by the NWS Sioux City regional office that placed photos taken by the public into the public domain as a term of submisison applied to all third party images across all of weather.gov
• the wording of the general site disclaimer on weather.gov that says "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" means "noted with a formal copyright notice" (and ignoring the wording later in the disclaimer that goes on to say "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.")

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that:

• the NWS has had multiple, conflicting processes for public image submissions over the decades, some running concurrently by different regional offices (examples). Some of these processes made release into the public domain a condition of submission, others did not, and some were ambiguous. In practice, we can almost never link a particular image to any particular submission process.
• in every one of several dozen cases investigated, individual photographers and third-party organizations had not released their work into the public domain when they submitted it for the NWS to use, and still asserted their rights over their images.(examples) This indicates that either the site general disclaimer is not intended to be interpreted the way that uploaders to the Commons have interpreted it over the years, or that this interpretation is correct, but that NWS employees have applied notices to images so very inconsistently over the years as to render the disclaimer completely unreliable.

These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to obtain permission of the copyright holder. Nevertheless, to expedite this process (and because throughout this review period, the people arguing most strenuously for retention have been remarkably reticent to actually ask photographers about the copyright status of their images), I have approached every one of the creators I have been able to identify.

We do not have any evidence that any of these images are available under a free license and we cannot host them here. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I uploaded the Rochelle tornado photo. I cannot speak to its copyright status: like many others I had assumed it was public domain. I will reach out to the Chicago NWS office to see if they can provide any input on it. On another note, this image is used in a Good Article on EN. If it is deleted on the Commons, could it be uploaded to EN under Fair Use? TornadoLGS (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure; if there are no free images of this tornado out there (and a quick search suggests this is the case), then yes, I would see this as fair use; especially if there are any noteworthy features of the tornado that can be discerned in the image. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of note, I did get a response from NWS Chicago. They actually aren't sure if they had obtained proper permission to use the photograph themselves. The person I communicated with said that they would delete the photo from their own page if they cannot confirm permission. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete the two images where @Rlandmann did receive a response. Neutral for now on the others pending response. Although I will update it to delete if @Rlandmann doesn’t receive a response in a reasonable time. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @TornadoLGS -- would you mind forwarding that response to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and noting the ticket number in this thread please? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done TornadoLGS (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @TornadoLGS -- can you add the ticket number here please? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's ticket:2024102610000601. You want it in the comments section on the table? TornadoLGS (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rlandmann, I heard back on the Rochelle tornado. They have not heard back from the author of the photo and have removed it from the NWS site. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Rlandmann (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hurricane Clyde -- just noting that I have listed these because I am no longer expecting a response after 6-8 weeks, and I am no longer pursuing them. Up to you how you define a "reasonable time" though, of course. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m going to give it about another week or two before I update to delete. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just in case someone does respond. That’s why I’m neutral for now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's really generous. I usually take it as a no if I don't get a response in a week or so. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Ixfd64 -- well, I was also waiting for the outcome of the RfC so that it's absolutely certain that the burden of proof here is on the uploaders and those wanting to keep the files. Previously, some folks had literally asserted that the weather.gov general disclaimer was itself evidence of permission (and then studiously avoiding putting their belief to the test). Otherwise, yeah, if there's no response after a week or two, I think it's highly improbable that one's still on its way! --Rlandmann (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems really hard to find good pictures of specific tornadoes, let alone a freely-licensed one. I assume it's because tornadoes only last a relatively short time, and most people who see one are going to be running for their lives. Taking a photo for Wikipedia is going to be the last thing on their minds. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: It's quite difficult to get a response from people these days. I've contacted a dozen or so copyright holders to request a release of rights for non-free files, and most of them have ghosted me as well. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And plus; some of these people might be ghosting you because you are unfamiliar. Admittedly I would probably have ghosted you myself if someone claimed to be “Rlandmann at Wikimedia Commons” in an instant message. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh yes, 100%. I don't blame them, and there's no judgement here. Nor do I blame the folks who stop responding when they see the complex-looking, legally-worded document that is our copyright release. I'm more surprised by the two people from whom I did get a release! And even then, the VRT challenged one because the photo is hosted on weather.gov but the email wasn't coming from a weather.gov address. But we got it through in the end. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer who took File:2014ColumbiaMSEF3.jpg just got back to me. They said they do not own the rights to the image because they took it as part of their work for the Hattiesburg American newspaper.

Therefore, anyone wanting to keep this image should reach out to that publication or its owner, Gannett, to see if they ever freely licensed the image or would be willing to do so. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]