Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 9

July 9

File:TheIncredibles Soundtrack.jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This cover consists of c:File:Symbol from The Incredibles logo.svg and simple text on a black background and is thus ineligible for copyright due to being below the required threshold of originality. License should thus be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:30, 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.

File:The Beatles - Revolver (Super Deluxe Set).jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Charlescityiatornadoaftermath2.jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Well, on that note of putting time into finding more examples, I just found some more. With that said, here are other discussions relating to the PD-NWS template (The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)):[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SD Tornado.jpg (Kept)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020aug-derecho-corn-sunset-Adel-IA.jpg (Kept)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:2019 Allen, SD tornado.jpg (Kept)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020aug-derecho-damage-Scranton-Iowa.jpg (Kept)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:EF2 tornado near Wrights, IL.jpg (Deleted - Closing administrator reason: "Deleted: per nomination, in particular due to the "watermark in the source for this photograph that says © Tom Stolze"."
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg (Kept)

@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.

However, the the relevant contributions page at NWS has submissions dating back to 2006, and Sisson's contribution is undated.

~~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

I'll update this comment when archive.org is working again; it might be able to settle this for us. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

a version of the NWS disclaimer has existed at https://www.weather.gov/fsd/disclaimer since at least 31 May 2022 earliest capture on archive.org
another version previously existed at https://www.weather.gov/lmk/photo_submission_information at least as early as 6 September 2015 earliest capture on archive.org
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]

It doesn't matter per Commons discussions/precedents. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg (Kept), Commons:Deletion requests/File:1965 Elkhart Double Tornado-Palm Sunday.jpg (Kept), and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madison 1974.jpg (Kept) are just a few pre-2000 NWS images that have all been kept under that policy/guideline. The Commons has hundreds (maybe even thousands) of pre-2009 images under that template. In fact, this isn't an issue on Wikipedia either. A 1974 image (the famous image of the 1974 Xenia tornado) even made a run as a featured picture candidate it didn't pass not for a copyright issue, but due to the size. As a note, even a Wikimedia Commons administrator participated in that FPC discussion and uploaded File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg under that template. In short, your concerns have been solved and determined to not be an issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already exported the image to Commons, so further discussion here is moot. I'll take this up over there. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:46, 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.