File talk:Polynesia-triangle.png

Info from Image:Polynesia.JPG:

Globe showing the Polynesian triangle
Creator: [[:de:Benutzer:Captain Blood]]

Bei der Erstellung der Landkarte wurden die Generic Mapping Tools verwendet: http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu/

Uploaded to german wp on 19:16, 4. Jan 2005 by [[:de:Benutzer:Captain Blood]].
Uploaded as thumbnail (Image:600px-Tahiti.png) to Commons on 21:00, 4 Apr 2005 by [[User:Mschlindwein]].
Re-uploaded with original size and correct name on 13.06.2005 by [[User:Avatar]].
Re-uploaded with modification to mark Polynesia in English.[[User:BirgitteSB]]

{{GFDL}}
[[Category:Maps of Oceania|!]]
[[Category:Polynesia]]

License

This must be released under the GFDL. It was always acknowlodged to be a derivative of Image:Polynesia.JPG which was licensed by GFDL. Therefore this derivative cannot be put in the Public Domain. If anyone doubts that this is based off of Image:Polynesia.JPG I do still have the files.--BirgitteSB 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was always acknowledged to be a "Recreation of Image:Polynesia.JPG"*, which I'm sure you'll find to be a most flexible phrase comprised of most flexible words. I'll happily debate if you have any further arguments to present. ¦ Reisio 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how you can claim this is anything but a derivative. That it is a recreation means nothing. It does not matter if you redrew it by hand, this file is a derivative of the creative work of others. Please change the license back to GFDL.--BirgitteSB 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"this file is a derivative of the creative work of others"

So, what you're saying is that the resource from whence you discovered that polynesia fits into a triangle was licensed GFDL? Even if that's true (I doubt it), there are other resources.

¦ Reisio 18:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is there were creative choices made. Which islands were labeled which were not. What kind of map projection to use mercator , globe, something else? I actually have three different projection I worked on, two of them being globes, and in the end I chose to use the exact same darkly colored version of the globe you used. If this was not a derivative of others work it probably would not so exactly match the creative chioces made by previous contributors. But this is a moot point because you acknowledge it is a recreation of the previous file which had several contributors who released it under the GFDL, which is the only reason you can legaly derive your file from it. I did not chose the GFDL, but by making a derivative of others work I had no choice but to put my work under the GFDL. You are in the exact same position, the fact that you recreated the file from scratch has no bearing on this issue.--BirgitteSB 13:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"What I am saying is there were creative choices made. Which islands were labeled which were not. What kind of map projection to use mercator , globe, something else? I actually have three different projection I worked on, two of them being globes, and in the end I chose to use the exact same darkly colored version of the globe you used."

Good for you. Azimuthal orthographic is a nice projection, isn't it.

"If this was not a derivative of others work it probably would not so exactly match the creative chioces made by previous contributors."

I'll acknowledge that it's a derivative of others work insofar as long ago others formalized the azimuthal orthographic projection and found that polynesia fits into a triangle and marked maps with a blue sea and green land, but that's about it. If you find that any of that is licensed, do let me know.

"But this is a moot point because you acknowledge it is a recreation of the previous file"

Yes, in my words, a recreation. Quite moot.

"I did not chose the GFDL, but by making a derivative of others work I had no choice but to put my work under the GFDL."

Try assembling something yourself, then, next time. You'll have more choice.

¦ Reisio 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

By "moot point" I mean I do not have to prove it is a derivative because you have clearly acknowledged the influence of the previous incarnation. I am obviously not able to sucessfully explain this, perhaps someone else can describe it with more clarity than I have.--BirgitteSB 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think I know what you mean - it's just not accurate. ¦ Reisio 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you did not believe this to be a derivative work why did you credit the previous contributors by preserving their names and the previous version's history in your new upload? Why did you not upload it as a new work if you believed it to be one?--BirgitteSB 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignore that I have a better question. I do not mean to imply that there is no possibilty for me to be wrong here. One way this could not be a derivative work is if nothing in it can be considered a creative work. That it is in essence uncopyrightable. Is this what you beleive to be true, that all kind of depictions of a globe (labeled or not) are uncopyrightable? Or do you believe that the fact the you recreated it from scratch divorces it from the copyright of the prior versions? Or is your reasoning something else? I am unsure of what your position is besides that I am wrong :) --BirgitteSB 20:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There was certainly very little creativity involved. I like the projection, but GMT did the work. I probably spent a few seconds picking out a font for the numbers. So, both, maybe. ¦ Reisio 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually had the pleasure of spending some time at this exhibit which seemed to focus on the different choices made by different mapmakers in various eras which various agendas. Unfortunately the link the "virtual tour" doesn't work right now. I am putting this link here in the hope that it is just a glitch, because it was very interesting. After absorbing all of that I really have trouble believing such choices are not creative. Obviously my opinion is that this is a derivative of the older files. Still I going to seek out some other's ideas on this. This is not because this file is so important to me that I must see it put into the GFDL, but I am more interested in determining where the line is drawn on when something is no longer considered a derivative. Basically if I am wrong, I want to know why I am wrong, and I do not find your last answer satisfing in that regard. Anyways expect new people coming to the discussion.--BirgitteSB 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW I uploaded the old files temporarily for comparision; the version I started with is at Image:Polynesia..png and the version as it was after my own contribution is at Image:Polynesia.JPG. --BirgitteSB 21:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it as one of those horribly ambiguous things like fair use or defining what is and isn't an island. ¦ Reisio 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. This obviously tries to depict the same thing as the two previous files. It uses a different map - although same view of the globe - and different marking (numbering not naming). So, I don't know if this is enough to qualify as a derivative work. Reisio, given that there is doubt, why are you so opposed to labelling it GFDL? pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My standpoint aside, pub domain is a much more friendly "license" than GFDL. ¦ Reisio 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled. How does Commons handles these kinds of disputes? Should I bring in someone who is able to give a legal opinion, or is there a process on Commons this should go through?--BirgitteSB 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fiji

I have corrected this image to remove the references to Fiji. Fiji is not included in Polynesia because it is a Melanesian culture. Kahuroa 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Remake on the way

The image at the moment leaves out parts of the Polynesian Triangle like the Chatham Islands, Samoa, Tonga and most of New Zealand. I will need to start from scratch to fix this. A much more accurate map is File:Polynesian triangle.svg Kahuroa (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)