Template talk:PD-NWS

Updating PD-NWS template re: content submitted by third parties

Based on a long discussion, many DRs, and correspondence with the National Weather Service at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Possible issues with Template:PD-NWS (please update the link once the thread is archived), it seems like the current content of PD-NWS is not accurate. I'm creating this thread here to keep the history of template-related changes in one place, on the talk page of the template itself.

Pinging involved users: Jmabel, WeatherWriter, WestVirginiaWX, Berchanhimez, ChessEric, Sir MemeGod ._., Rlandmann, JWilz12345

Current content (English):

This image is in the public domain because it was stored on the web servers of the U.S. National Weather Service. NWS-created images are automatically public domain in the U.S. since the NWS is a part of the U.S. government. However, the NWS sites also host non-NWS images which have been submitted by individuals: these are generally shown as "Courtesy of ...". Such images have explicitly been released to the public domain by the copyright owner as part of the upload process. As stated at https://www.weather.gov/disclaimer/: "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." As stated at https://www.weather.gov/fsd/disclaimer: "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." Thus, all* images on NWS servers are public domain (including "Courtesy of ..." and “Photo by ...” images) unless specifically stated otherwise through a copyright (©) watermark. *A deletion discussion in November 2023 ruled that Getty Images on the web servers of NWS, are to be considered copyrighted, even without a copyright (©) watermark and are the sole exception to this rule.

NWS correspondance confirming our template is not accurate

Particularly, this email from the NWS via Rlandmann in the thread linked above confirmed that they do not believe that disclaimers on their site released third-party images into the Public Domain:

A few weeks ago, I reached out to the Sioux Falls office. I asked:

"We can see that for many years, NWS has had a policy[1] that when somebody submits an image to you, they release it into the public domain. What we don't know is how far back this policy goes. The earliest archived record of that policy we can find is 2009, but the NWS has been sharing public submissions since long before that!

Is it safe for us to assume that all images on weather.gov that are credited to a member of the general public are all in the public domain, regardless of how far back they were submitted to you?

Many thanks for any light you can shed on this question!

[1] -- https://www.weather.gov/fsd/disclaimer"

Today's reply:

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.

For images verified to be in the public domain, a collection of weather-related images can be found within the NOAA Digital Library: https://www.noaa.gov/digital-library .

National Weather Service - Sioux Falls, SD

I hope this is of use. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on the discussion in the thread linked above, and the most recent email, it seems like non-NWS images submitted by individuals are not released into the Public Domain, and that NWS rules should follow standard US Government copyright (content produced by US Government employees as part of their government duties are automatically PD). Consigned (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible solutions

The possible solutions I see are

1. Do away with the NWS template completely and just use PD-USGov
2. Modify the NWS template into something like {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, which does not extend any PD further than PD-USGov, but includes some useful agency-specific information, or use inspiration from {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}
3. Deprecate {{PD-NWS}} and use {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} instead (added 20:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC))

Based on the linked discussion above, and in the interest of maintaining the categorization of NWS images, I imagine we should pursue option 2 (edit: or 3). Thoughts? Ideas on new template text? Consigned (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC) (edited 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC))

Given the ongoing confusion over third-party file status, I think it makes sense to have a separate template (or two). I've already been using {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} when investigating files and found examples that are unambiguously NWS work. I'm happy for that to be an interim measure and replaced by something more robust, though.

Note that at the very least, the link to and language around the Sioux Falls submission guidelines will need to be updated, since they removed that wording in the wake of my query.

Also, there are quite a number of files now scattered across DRs opened by myself and others; it might be prudent to wait to see how those pan out before finalising anything here, but of course we can make a start. -- Rlandmann (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t actually get the ping for some reason. But I like Option 2. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add that https://www.weather.gov/fsd/disclaimer no longer has the text saying “you understand that your picture is being released into the public domain”; they took that down. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually like the text of the PD-USGov-NWS-employee prototype. I wouldn’t be opposed to using that text (with perhaps some minor modifications); or even just retire this tag and use the employee tag. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to resend Consigned’s pings because I never received mine (so I doubt they did either), I was just lucky enough to see the link when I was checking village pump, I’m also adding a few more people to the ping list; @WeatherWriter @Sir MemeGod @ChessEric @Jmabel @JWilz12345 @HikingHurricane @Hurricanehink @Ks0stm @United States Man @Chlod WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks WestVirginiaWX. BTW I have added option 3 thanks to Rlandmann bringing up {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}. Consigned (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Since they came out with an option 3; I’m in support of either option 2 or 3. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty; leaning towards supporting option 3 WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the legacy PD-NWS template should remain until the images tagged with it are dealt with and then deprecated. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment I am currently emailing another office (NWS Austin/San Antonio) on this issue and am awaiting a response. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 18:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is the email:

Dear NWS Austin/San Antonio,

Hello! I am one member of a team of people who work on tornado-related pages on Wikipedia, and we had a few questions about the copyright status of several image issues that have come to our attention:

1. The first image that we had a question with is the famous "Dead Man Walking" image of the May 27, 1997 Jarrell F5, taken by Scott Beckwith (who did not work at the National Weather Service) and is a third-party. This image can be found here: May 27, 1997 Central Texas Tornado Outbreak (arcgis.com). Since this image is featured in a National Weather Service-authored webpage, does this make it public domain?

2. Are images put into the public domain once they are featured on a NWS webpage, whether permission was asked or not?

3. Does the National Weather Service ask for permission to put all images not made by an employee into the public domain?

4. How early on was the NWS Image Disclaimer (which can be found at NWS Disclaimer For Photo Use (weather.gov)) used, and are photos given to the National Weather Service before this disclaimer was implemented public domain?

Thank you for taking the time to read this email, as this is a very serious issue. We have already emailed one seperate National Weather Service office, as this could potentially change the copyright status of hundreds, if not thousands, of images. Have a great day!

Please forward this email to info-en@wikimedia.org and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org when replying. Thank you! Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 18:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify; that editor’s request is mainly because of the Dead Man Walking tornado image that was renominated. He may be asking for clarification on that particular image. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No. I added the question about that image to clear up the deletion discussion and also to clarify for NWS Austin/San Antonio office in specific what does and doesn't constitute public domain images overall. Only the first question is related to the 1997 image. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 18:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea I like option 2, specifying that works by NWS employees are public domain, just as they've always been. That would allow the various image products made by NWS employees to have a nice and convenient tag. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I am slightly in preference of option 3, as in the short-medium term it will make identifying images that are unclear as to their PD status able to be categorized by their use of the PD-NWS template, while allowing images that currently use that template but are verified to be official works by an NWS employee to be changed over to the new template. I think a short term update to PD-NWS is in order, however, to clarify that it is both deprecated and that images tagged with it need to either be migrated to another tag (GOV work, nonotice, etc) as applicable, replaced with an appropriate license with explicit confirmation from the creator somewhere (i.e. not based on being on a NWS webpage), or deleted. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Overhauling this template

I've had a couple of starts at re-drafting this template, but so much of it is so obviously non-sensical or based on opinion rather than evidence (The whole "Thus..." claim) that I think maybe the best thing we could do right now is be honest about the ambiguity as we gradually work through the licence reviews (and be thankful that there are only ~1,400 of them to check, not ~140,000 like the folks at PD-Art are working through...). How about something like:

Caution: License review in progress
As of August 2024, the copyright and licensing status of this file is under review.

A Commons contributor has asserted in good faith that this file is in the public domain either because:

• it is a work of the National Weather Service, and as a work of the US Federal Government, ineligible for copyright or
• a third party might have submitted it to a National Weather Service regional office via a process that placed it in the public domain. In particular, the Sioux Falls, La Crosse, Louisville, and Omaha offices are known to have had such policies at various points in time. or
• it is free of copyright for some other reason (for example, it was ineligible for copyright for some other reason, or its copyright has expired)

Before re-using this file

Verify that at least one of the above conditions is true. If the file was created by a third party and you cannot verify which submission process was used to submit it to the NWS, contact the creator of the file and ask their permission to re-use it.

Other mass review projects use similar approaches, for example, the ongoing review of German postage stamps (see File:Stamp_Bremen_(1929).jpg as a random example). --Rlandmann (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)