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)

Option 3 I'm choosing this option. Not going to say anything else on this subject. ChessEric (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Reluctant Option 2 – I realistically do not support changing or getting rid of {{PD-NWS}}. However, I do see I may be the only one with that view. With that said, out of the 3 proposed options, I would support option 2, with every office that has PD disclaimers listed and which dates they are acceptable. I am not going to debate this or anything, given I do not realistically even support it, given it is, well, wrong. But, my support would be more like a precautionary principle support, given the consensus is very clearly in the other direction. I shall continue to fight against deletions though, so there is my "supported option" and I ain't going to comment on any replies to this either, so don't bother. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that this should be the end goal. I created {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} as a purely interim measure because having a separate template makes the license review task so very much easier. Once that odyssey is over, I very much hope that we can just redirect it to an updated PD-NWS (although PD-USGov-NWS is more consistent with how these templates are named these days.) "PD-USGov-NWS-employee" is obviously redundant once we've teased apart what the NWS owns and what they don't! -- Rlandmann (talk) 03:00, 13 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 September 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 under terms and conditions that placed it in the public domain. For example, the La Crosse,[1] Louisville,[2], Norman[3], Omaha[4], Peachtree City[5] and Sioux Falls[6] offices are known to have had such terms and conditions for certain contests and other public outreach 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) If, during review, this file is found to be in the public domain, a new rationale will be applied as part of the review process and this notice will no longer be displayed. Files that cannot be established with reasonable certainty to be in the public domain will be deleted. To uploaders If uploading a file created by NWS and its employees, use {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} instead If uploading a third-party file hosted on an NWS site or channel, use {{PD-NWS-third party}} instead Before re-using this file You must verify that at least one of the above conditions is true. In particular, if the file was created by a third party, verify that the specific terms and conditions under which its creator submitted it to the NWS included an explicit release of the file into the public domain. Read such terms and conditions carefully; at least one of these (Omaha) contains one option which would place the file into the public domain and another option which would not. If you cannot verify the terms and conditions that applied to the submission, or these terms and conditions did not contain an explicit release into the public domain, contact the creator of the file and ask their permission to re-use it. If you are unable to verify that this file is in the public domain or available under a free license, please consider nominating this file for deletion. See below for the original rationale for asserting that this file is in the Public Domain. Original public domain rationale Caution: License review in progress As of September 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 under terms and conditions that placed it in the public domain. For example, the La Crosse, Louisville, Norman, Omaha, Peachtree City, and Sioux Falls offices are known to have had such terms and conditions for certain contests and other public outreach at various points in time (see here for a complete list) or it is free of copyright for some other reason (for example, it contains no copyrightable elements, or its copyright has expired) If, during review, this file is found to be in the public domain or available under a free license, a new rationale will be applied as part of the review process and this notice will no longer be displayed. Files that cannot be established with reasonable certainty to be in the public domain or available under a free license will be deleted. To uploaders If uploading a file created by NWS and its employees, use {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} instead If uploading a third-party file hosted on an NWS site or channel, use {{PD-NWS-third party}} instead Before re-using this file You must verify that at least one of the above conditions is true. In particular, if the file was created by a third party, verify that the specific terms and conditions under which its creator submitted it to the NWS included an explicit release of the file into the public domain. Read such terms and conditions carefully; at least one of these (Omaha) contains one option which would place the file into the public domain and another option which would not. If you cannot verify the terms and conditions that applied to the submission, or these terms and conditions did not contain an explicit release into the public domain, contact the creator of the file and ask their permission to re-use it. If you are unable to verify that this file is in the public domain or available under a free license, please consider nominating this file for deletion. See below for the original rationale for asserting that this file is in the Public Domain. Original public domain rationale 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.

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)

This looks good but I would make clear that the second condition is not sufficient unless there is an explicit release. As an example, many photo submissions to specific contests had explicit instructions for how to have it counted for those contests - so images on those pages may be able to be presumed PD. But just because the image “might” have submitted it, we should err on the side of PRP and delete unless there is another explicit license/release somewhere (either from the photographer specifically or another method that is more explicit). Berchanhimez (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! And I agree with you re: our eventual handling of files where we can't be reasonably sure of what the submitter agreed to. I made a few tweaks to the proposed template based on your suggestions. Please take another look! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The changes you made more than satisfy me - I don't think making the change to the template should preclude any editor from adding any contests that you/prior discussions have missed if they find proof of those contests' terms/conditions (but I don't think you disagree with me there). The only other change I'd make is to more explicitly include instructions on what to do if it can't be verified - i.e. to start a deletion request and as part of that deletion request outreach may be conducted to confirm (either to the NWS for more information or to the photographer for their view on it). Berchanhimez (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The template definitely needs overhauled. I like the idea. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

OK; I didn't go quite as far as outlining what might happen during a deletion request discussion, but I hope I captured the essence of your recommendations. (I'm already worried about length and level of detail here, but it's a complex situation, and I'm sure we agree that making something too simple only risks further complication later. Ironically, the NWS' own general disclaimer is a poster-child for this...)

Other notes: I won't propose rolling this out until at least this DR has played out (and of course taking into account other feedback that might roll in here). At that time, I'll transfer the detailed rationale I wrote there to a child page of Commons:WikiProject_Public_Domain and link it from the new template as well. -- Rlandmann (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy with everything you've stated here and done to the proposed template. Thank you for your effort - I have time to opine but not much time to actually work on this - so I appreciate your time investment into this issue. Berchanhimez (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a great start, I'm supportive of your original proposal as well as how it looks now (though it's a little long!). Just to confirm, are you suggesting that the files that are reviewed and deemed valid PD be switched from this template to {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}? Consigned (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, or another new template for ones that we can confirm are third-party and released into the Public Domain. I'll mock that up as well. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why can’t we use the PD-self template for something like that? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-self}} is only for your own images that you're uploading to Commons. So if someone had already submitted an image to the NWS and wanted to upload it here as well, they could use that template. Otherwise, for a third-party image that someone finds on weather.gov they could use the new template I've got baking, or {{PD-because}}. Whether they use the new template or PD-because doesn't really matter very much, just as long as they specify the terms under which the image was explicitly released. (The new template will provide more specific guidance for this though). -- Rlandmann (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That German stamp you mentioned probably falls under PD-old; it was made in 1929, so the copyright likely expired. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Last thing I’ve thought of (but I’m personally happy with this being replaced ASAP as is if need be) - is there a way to automatically categorize/track (either via a template switch or an edit filter or similar) uploads made to this template after the date it is changed over? Berchanhimez (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Companion template for third party images in the public domain

So, I mentioned a companion to {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} template; and this is what I came up with. Basic; just with a link to the terms and conditions:

	This file is in the public domain in the United States because a third party submitted it to the National Weather Service under terms and conditions that released it into the public domain. At different times, various regional offices of the National Weather Service have held contests or other public outreach exercises that have made release of submissions into the public domain a condition of participation. This file was submitted by its creator to the National Weather Service under the terms and conditions found at: https://www.weather.gov/arx/photos
	Warnings: You must provide a link to the specific set of terms and conditions that apply to this file Linking to the weather.gov general disclaimer or to terms and conditions that might exist on the same NWS regional office server as the one on which you found this file but which is not explicitly connected with this file is not sufficient

Or with a quote as well:

	This file is in the public domain in the United States because a third party submitted it to the National Weather Service under terms and conditions that released it into the public domain. At different times, various regional offices of the National Weather Service have held contests or other public outreach exercises that have made release of submissions into the public domain a condition of participation. This file was submitted by its creator to the National Weather Service under the terms and conditions found at: https://www.weather.gov/arx/photos "Do you have some pictures from the surrounding area that you would like to contribute to our photos page? Email us your digital photos, along with the location and date they were taken (include your name if you'd like it included). We will review them, and if they pass the "test", they will be included. Please note that this is a government site and in the public domain, so no copyright privileges will exist. Thanks!"
	Warnings: You must provide a link to the specific set of terms and conditions that apply to this file Linking to the weather.gov general disclaimer or to terms and conditions that might exist on the same NWS regional office server as the one on which you found this file but which is not explicitly connected with this file is not sufficient

And this is what it looks like if you forget to link to the terms and conditions:

	This file is in the public domain in the United States because a third party submitted it to the National Weather Service under terms and conditions that released it into the public domain. At different times, various regional offices of the National Weather Service have held contests or other public outreach exercises that have made release of submissions into the public domain a condition of participation. This file was submitted by its creator to the National Weather Service under the terms and conditions found at: You must link to the terms under which the creator of this file released it into the public domain
	Warnings: You must provide a link to the specific set of terms and conditions that apply to this file Linking to the weather.gov general disclaimer or to terms and conditions that might exist on the same NWS regional office server as the one on which you found this file but which is not explicitly connected with this file is not sufficient

You can read the full template documentation at {{PD-NWS-third party}}

Please let me know how I can improve this! -- Rlandmann (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And you can see it in action on an example here. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: what template would be used if the author submitted it to the Weather Service and explicitly released it into the public domain (with proof coming either from the author or the NWS, but didn’t submit using one of the above disclaimers? Would it be maybe PD-because? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Good catch! Let me figure out some wording to allow for that possibility (suggestions very welcome).

That said, I've now reviewed nearly 200 of the images tagged {{PD-NWS}} (about 1/7 of the total) and I've yet to come across such an example. (I've also not come across an example "in the wild" of one that was unambiguously submitted under a known process with a PD release, other than a couple of test cases I uploaded myself). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Third-party images published by the National Weather Service

I've now reviewed 1,000 images uploaded under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template and requested deletion of several.

The arguments for deletion, and to keep, are now following repetitive, predictable patterns and it would greatly help all involved if we could centralise discussion and obtain some wider community input.

Therefore, I have opened an RfC to gather opinions. Apologies in advance: it's long and detailed, but is frankly nothing compared to the words and time expended by all parties up to this point. Probably the most crucial issue revolves around how we interpret a general disclaimer published at weather.gov (Q.1 in the RfC).

Your advice is greatly appreciated! --Rlandmann (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Deployed

Today, I finished reviewing 1,468 files that were using this tag, plus another 29 that were added since I started. I have moved all the obviously, unambiguously PD files to other, more specific tags.

The 221 files still using this tag are those that:

• are third-party files (ones with clear copyright or license issues I've sent to DR)
• are difficult to verify for some reason (mostly due to issues of how the source is linked)
• need more time and digging to investigate

Therefore I have switched the tag to the "under review" version we were discussing here.

The second pass will take time (the relevant RfC has only just opened, so that's at least about a month to run...) This gives us more time to think about and talk about what the final implementation should be here. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

PS: I tagged a lot of stuff into {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} that might well be in the PD for some other reason; either generated by an automated system or things like charts and tables that probably don't cross the threshold of originality. But that usually involves making judgement calls that "created by the NWS" generally doesn't... --Rlandmann (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)