Template talk:PD-USGov-Interior-NPS

New text
User:doncram thought the previous text on the template was not specific/clear enough and changed it following my suggestion to be bold. However, I'm not so sure the new version is accurate either. nps.gov's copyright policy is specific in saying that information "presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain". That being the case, I think a more appropriate template would be something like:

 ''This article or image contains material based on a work of a National Park Service employee, created during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, such work is in the public domain. See the NPS website and NPS copyright policy for more information. Note that not all images on NPS websites are in the public domain. Please be sure that any images used are not attributed to a copyright holder.''

However, having said that, I'm not sure whether such an advisory notice is appropriate for this kind of template. Thoughts? -- Hux (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. My view of NPS website information copyright status was coloured by an email from someone at NPS that expressed a narrower view.  If it is really public domain "unless indicated otherwise" as you suggest, and which you point out is stated in their own copyright statement, then my general disgruntlement is reduced.  Perhaps due to my own momentum on this issue, i still hate the template and want to make it less attractive to those who would misuse it.  Hence, to be honest, I want to put in negative sounding statements and give the evil-doers pause.  In my view, I am fighting the good fight against wanton plagiarizers who proudly use this template.  I want to take them all down a notch.  They should quote specific websites and not hide behind a generic shield like this.  I think i am not sounding convincing in a coldly logical way right now, i am trying to be honest instead.  Not my last words on the subject necessarily. doncram (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A big problem with many uses of this template is that it is implicitly/explicitly asserted an NPS employee has created a given image, but the specific association with a named NPS employee is not given. (A modified version of this template could be used with various photo sets on National Register of Historic Places sites, where specific NPS employees on site visits take photos and their names are recorded in photo credits.)  However, just because an image is available on an NPS website, it is not implied the image was created by an NPS employee, and for the most part wikipedia users slap this template onto anything they get off an NPS website.  The template is used in practice broadly to claim PD status of any image on any NPS website.  The template would be better modified to require a field to be filled out, stating the name of the specific NPS employee who created a given image (which could be done for the NRHP photo sets).  Personally, based on experience in evaluating various webpages with this or similar templates, the use of the template is bunk without a specific assertion of the name of the NPS employee and also perhaps even requiring the date of employment/taking of the image. doncram (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You raise some interesting points. However, I suspect that a couple of areas where you take issue with the template might not actually fit with Wikipedia policy and copyright law as they stand. For example, I believe I'm correct in saying that one can't simply upload an image from an NPS website, slap this template on it and leave it at that. Instead, the uploader is obligated to link back to the page where the image was found. That being the case, your problem there is not so much with the template as it is with users not doing what they're supposed to do, and I would argue that changing the template text as a means to solve that problem is futile - those uploaders who are not following policy now will continue to not follow policy (whether deliberately or due to ignorance of what is required of them), whatever the template says.
 * The other point I want to mention is where you argue that the specific NPS photographer should be credited and on this point I think you're at odds with the law. If something is in the public domain by default - as all creative works produced by the federal government are - then no attribution is required; the image is entirely free for anyone to use in any way they please. So the only thing that Wikipedia needs to worry about is whether or not an image found at an NPS source is an NPS-produced image or a copyrighted image that NPS happens to be using. To make that decision I feel that it is entirely reasonable for us to take the NPS official policy at its word and assume that an image is in the public domain unless the NPS itself states otherwise. (It's worth noting that NASA has the same copyright policy and Wikipedia follows it in exactly this way.)
 * I think the solution here is not to change the text of the template, but instead to just pay more attention to how it's being used by, for example, flagging incorrect uses of it and deleting images where no source information can be found. What do you think? -- Hux (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the text to something resembling my suggestion above, primarily because the previous text was stating something that is verifiably not true re the obligation to attribute the work to the specific NPS photographer (i.e. there is no such obligation). -- Hux (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)