Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/16

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] July 16

[edit] Maps by 52 Pickup


See also Commons:Deletion requests/IEGMaps


These are all of the map images uploaded by me while I was active here. They are derivative works, where the original map data ultimately came from http://www.ieg-maps.uni-mainz.de.

There are other maps like this by other uploaders here (see old deletion request above, i think there are even more than listed there, too) and since they were also IEG derivatives, I thought that it was okay to upload the above images - although I believe I was the first person who actually stated the link to IEG, with the necessary attribution as requested on the IEG site [1]:

Es wird darum gebeten, dass auch bei der Erarbeitung neuer Karten (z.B. von Diagrammkarten), die auf Grundlagen-Karten des Servers beruhen, auf die Quelle IEG-MAPS - Kartenserver am Institut für Europäische Geschichte Mainz hingewiesen wird.

And I thought that then everything was kosher, especially since the use is apparently non-commercial - something that I now doubt after having left WP, but that's another story.

I quit WP over a year ago. During that time, the above deletion request was made. Since I was no longer active here, I only saw the deletion notification by chance. I made my comments [2] and then left again, not following the remainder of the debate since I had nothing else to say, and left the decision to delete with the admins. In the end, nothing was deleted.

Today, just out of curiosity, I went back to the IEG site to see if I had missed anything in the terms and conditions. Indeed I had:

Für die Veröffentlichung von Karten (Druck oder elektronisch) ist eine kostenpflichtige Lizenz für die den Karten zugrunde liegenden digitalen Grundgeometrien notwendig.

So for the geodata that governs the borders, a licence fee should be paid if you want to publish the maps (in print or electronically) - and that is even for derivative works. If I had noticed this before I would never have uploaded anything. This was a stupid mistake of mine, for which I can only apologise. I am still no longer active here but I wish to undo the damage that I have done.

Therefore, I insist that all the above listed images uploaded by me be deleted immediately as copyright violations. 52 Pickup (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Those restrictions are not copyright restrictions. Coordinates cannot be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous killer argument - Then NO single map or geodatabase could be copyrighted. The same way I could argue: Books consist of collections of letters and therefore cannot be copyrighted :) Again: maps don't represent just simple collections of coordinates (facts) - instead maps are a always a result of surveying, remote sensing, digitizing, investigating etc etc - thus contain a lot of creative work (even maps with border lines).
Even if we would see them as geodata (pure coordinates) then there are still database copyrights to be applied. Look at the discussions going on at Openstreetmap.org - then you'll get an impression of the difficulties in finding free mapping sources.
Anyway, I don't know whether it makes much sense to open up the discussion again. Unfortunately Users like 52Pickup might have some problems because of the Terms-of-Use-Violations been made while copying these maps. --Alexrk2 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If a good-faith uploader faces legal problems, a courtesy deletion will not be a big problem, in order to "clean" the user account. (However, images might then be re-uploaded by a sock, if the copyright claim is seen as invalid.) --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not facing any legal problems, but I want to avoid future ones for a mistake on my part, even though I no longer have anything to do with WP or Commons. No loose ends. 52 Pickup (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Openstreetmap.org can have its own standards, but we do not need to apply them here. This case is similar to Commons:Deletion requests/Norway maps by user:Jensens. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, I've no expertise in maps/map data. However, I really don't like the tune of Yann's closing statement. The next logical step then is the (at least apparent) desinterest of the WMF in Dcoetzee's problem. --Túrelio (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
So everyone making his own law (standards)? That's dangerours relativism. Commons should have legitimate interests in achieving legal certainty. And the law is for Commons the same as for me or for OSM. Not? We won't copy maps from eg Google Maps either. But the only difference between Google and those cases is: Google has more money for lawyers. The overall consequence of such relativism is that the rights of small content providers would be regularly harmed. The standard you mentioned thus based on the motto "They can't defend themselves so lets ignore their copyrights" - btw at least in Germany there are severall court decisions about that copying or digitizing maps does harm database copyright - because the map itself contains a geodatabase. If it would be allowed to copy any map, no map maker could produce a map anymore - like no author could write a book if books couldn't be copyrighted. However, I fear Túrelio is right: even if Commons would delete files just because of TOU-violations, other "not so good-faithed" users would re-upload them again. I don't like the consequence either: once a file has been uploaded, the uploader has no chance to withdraw them. --Alexrk2 (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: the law in Norway might be different than in Germany or US (I don't know). Just because in Norway something might be legal, it does not mean, that it is safe to upload to Commons - instead it just means, it is safe to upload to NO-wikipedia. Commons looks for a more common legal basis to comply with various countries. --Alexrk2 (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm in negotiations right now with the Institute of European History to donate various parts of their map collection to Wikipedia (see here) and replace these files. Their interests basically are a) referencing the true authors at the file description pages and b) preserve the original quality and accuracy of the data (within the present maps there are some errors due to the process of copying) --Alexrk2 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Austin_Kimberley.jpg

Scanned magazine page - see original uploader's comments for a similar image at the bottom of this enwiki discussion Peripitus (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep If you had actually bothered to read the text on the page that you have supplied a link to, you will find that there is no mention of this image on that link. Also, this the reason why you can't find any source for any of the rest of my images using websearch programs is because NONE of them are copied from either magazines or websites/blogs/etc!! - User:Dreamweaverjack
  • Currently no stated source. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete unless the uploader makes a clear statement that he is the original photographer. --Eusebius (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete TinEye finds it here, with registration plates. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

[edit] File:Niuafoʻou.jpg (old) or File:Niuafoou.jpg (new)

File:Niuafoʻou.jpg was marked as "speedy", but I would like to start a discussion, so that we decide collectively which one we keep and which one we delete.

User:Peko marked File:Niuafoʻou.jpg as {{speedydelete|Not correct display with char(ʻ) in the name of image}}, while uploading it again with a new name File:Niuafoou.jpg, without crediting the image processing author.

I have just inserted the picture (with the old name) on Wikipedia en:Niuafo'ou article, and the picture is displaying fine.

I don't have knowledge in the Tongan language, but at first sight the spelling with "ʻ" looks correct.

Teofilo (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As these two were small size picture, and as the NASA provides large size pictures, I uploaded and retouched the large size one as File:Satellite view of Niuafo'ou, 2005-03-19.jpg. As the retouching style is different, it might be better to keep one of the two small size ones, though. Teofilo (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Niuafoʻou is correct, Niuafoou is a misspelling (usually performed by that type of people who do not believe in accents, or are ASCII impaired). Tauʻolunga (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Niuafoou.jpg was yet deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Niuafoou.jpg when it was substituted for File:Niuafoʻou.jpg. It is the thirth upload of the same image from the same source, but with the colour corrections of the first upload without crediting it. It should be discused as a Commons:File renaming and keep the logs. I understand that the native name is Niuafoʻou, as it is explained at en:Niuafo'ou or it can be seen at to:Niuafoʻou. I think it should not be any problem with Unicode characters. --V.Riullop (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete File:Niuafoou.jpg of course (unused duplicate), see previous DR. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep File:Niuafoʻou.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept - File:Niuafoou.jpg gets marked as a duplicate (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mbr-wappen.jpg

No Copyright, Licensing Conflict. Is has to be deleted, now. Apfel-wie-Birne (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The User Apfel-Wie-Birne nominated the corresponding article on the german wikipedia ([3]) for deletition "because it was edited" - aparently he did not understand the wiki principle, and now tries to remove the texts he posted on wikipedia (with valid GFDL-Licensing on OTRS) again. This speedy deletition nomination appears to be connected to that. See [4] (german) for dialog about that. --84.148.93.159 13:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (--Funkysapien on de.wikipedia)

[edit] File:Bio_agencies.jpg

Incorrect licensing. Seems to be based on a photo from Der Spiegel, but is this eligible for copyright protection? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fem_biljoner_Mark.jpg

Google.se is not a verifiable source, the uploader is obviously not the copyright holder, so the GFDL tag is invalid. Is the image in the public domain, and if so, why? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not right. It might be PD for reasons such as age or because of who created it, but it definitely is not in the public domain for lacking original authorship. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
According to German standards (see File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg), this would never have been protected by copyright. But anyway, if it had been, it would now be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Currency says nothing about the former currencies of EU countries, which is a shame. I have no idea what copyright policy was in Germany at that time (Weimar republic?). --Eusebius (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is no official currency, but a kind of bonuspaper, maybe during inflation, by a German railroad company. I think it is PD because that company doesn't exist any longer and it is no artwork, but I am not shure. It is older than 80 years. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nokia_Nst-4_with_skype.jpg

The main subject of the photograph is a copyrighted, non-free software interface. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Even the screen shows a copyrighted program is it actually eligible for copyright? {{PD-text}} may applies here even I wouldn't keep it because of the bad quality and the low-level educational usability.
--D-Kuru (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a fine point whether gradients and such in the user interface which are not clearly visible here because of the poor quality are copyrightable or not. If the UI were the only issue, I might withdraw the nomination. Having looked at some of the other contributions from the user, however, I'm also concerned that they may not even be the photographer, as several of their uploads were commercial product images found online and tagged with false authorship information. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at all the user's contributions:

The whole uploads look to me as if Nokia ST would be some side but which is not important. I would delete all images; espacially those with a bad quality and those who are nearly duplicates
--D-Kuru (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep {{PD-text}}--Avron (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/07/16"