Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerial view of homes destroyed in Rolling Fork, Mississippi.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aerial view of homes destroyed in Rolling Fork, Mississippi.jpg

Image source credits Getty Images and photographer, PD-NWS rationale seems not to apply (and seems like an overbroad interpretation of its source link?) Penitentes (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by “overbroad interpretation”, since the exact wording of it is, 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. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

What you quoted appears on the Sioux Falls forecast office's user-submitted images disclaimer only ("By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain" (emphasis mine)), and should not have been taken to imply that any image appearing on any NWS-related government webpage falls under the public domain, even when it bears copyright logos, watermarks, or a caption indicative of a licensed third-party image. That's a much higher bar to clear and I think that as soon as any scrutiny falls on the template it is going to need to be rewritten further, and photos uploaded using it reevaluated.

In this case, the image appears on NOAA.gov, not an NWS website, and is credited to Getty Images and the original photographer. I see no evidence it was submitted to the National Weather Service by the photographer or license-holder, instead of NOAA simply licensing the photo. I will note that NWS's main website disclaimer, a more authoritative source than the user submission guidelines for the Sioux Falls office, says "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" and "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider." It is not clear to me whether "information" and "imagery" are interchangeable - I suspect not - but even if they are, listing the image source as Getty Images would seem to be 'noting otherwise' that the image is used under license. Penitentes (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Penitentes, there is a similar discussion (still ongoing currently) related to the NWS public domain template and such: Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg. In that discussion, I showed two examples from NWS of how the unless specifically noted otherwise clause works and what it means:

1. Example one is The Red River Valley Tornado Outbreak of 10 April 1979 webpage. On the “Tornado Photos” tab, you can see the usage of the “©” a lot. These (©) cases were actually typed and mentioned specifically by the National Weather Service, indicating that they were outside the public domain and well under that clause.
2. Example two is an image of the 2014 Pilger Twin tornadoes. On the image, there is an © watermark. There was a discussion specifically about this image ([1]) which determined that if the © is watermarked on the image, it too falls under that non-public domain clause.
3. The ongoing discussion is specifically whether or not an attribution watermark (not a ©) falls under the clause or is public domain.

In any case, based on the current consensus on the Commons, it appears a © is needed, whether stated by NWS or as a watermark in the image, for anything on a NOAA webpage to fall under that clause. So, based on the current consensus, it does fall under the public domain, and the “Photographer Name/Getty Images” note is considered attribution, which NWS does for every image not taken by NOAA, whether or not it is public domain. I hope that clears it up some and helps other editors are well. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep If I understand correctly, I would just add that you cannot relicense files released into or became public domain under a more restrictive license. A09 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood, but I just don't see enough evidence this was ever a public domain image. Penitentes (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per COM:PCP, I don't see any evidence the photographer released the license to the public domain, and I believe this was simply NOAA licensing a third party image. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)