Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haplogroups europe.png

The claim "map/image own creation" is not credible for the underpinning detailed map of Europe which contains contour indications. Per COM:PRP the source must be verifiable as having a free release. Fæ (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Making the outline of a map is so difficult that it cannot be credible? Images should not be deleted just on suspicion. It is noted that the author of the map is knowledgeable on the subject, and I recognize that the information on human genetics that the map shows is quite correct and is also valuable. It's commendable that someone donated hard work to Commons. And how easy it is for someone to delete it suddenly just because of suspicions.--Maulucioni (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The uploader has had as many files deleted from commons due to being copyright violations as are currently hosted. For example Commons:Deletion requests/File:RobertGabel.png shows they are not competent on copyright.

There is no reason at all to suppose that a claim of "own work" for the underpinning complex map of Europe that they used to create this image is 100% their own work. It is far, far, more probable that they took the map from an undeclared source and added their colour layers to it.

By the way, "Source = different scientific publications", means no source.

--Fæ (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep If the uploader committed previous copyright infringement does not automatically affect this case, we must not use analogy for judgment. If the map is not 100% made by the author, we must verify the remaining part not made by him, in this case, the contour of Europe. Since the simple contour of a map is not creative nor artistic it goes below the Threshold of originality and is not copyrightable. Information (contour of a map) is a discovery and not a creation. "Different scientific publications" refers to the scientific data used for creation, not to the artistic/creative content of the image. I suggest to add the {{PD-map}} template. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 06:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually look at the map.

It is well above the threshold of originality. It is not a simple outline, but is a complex relief map.

There is zero credibility to the fantasy that a user spontaneously imagined what Europe looks like on a map, then drew this from their imagination.

--Fæ (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: The same, contour and relief cannot be created nor invented by anyone. They are there, they can only be discovered and copied. Nobody can use fantasy to describe and replicate exactly a natural physical object created by nature. Also, here we don't have artistic interpretation (such as colors or perspective view), hence, there is no originality at all. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 14:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if you don't think that any map can be copyrighted, because they are maps, then there's no more to discuss. --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: I didn't write that. Artistic and creative content of a map, of course can be copyrighted. Information related to borders and physical can't, since they are not created by anybody. In this map, the copyright infringement is disputed to be of borders and relief. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 06:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to Wikimedia Commons policy that states this please.

Were this true, then all modern contour maps or and maps of country borders would be public domain, which flies in the fact of the copyright in this exact map data published by organizations like Ordnance Survey.

Refer to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2011/10#Maps. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Here you can find the rule explained very well.-- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 15:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the DW guideline more closely. Nowhere does it say that maps of "contour and relief" are all public domain.

Secondly, as you have not identified the source of the underpinning map of Europe, or its year of publication, you have no idea to what extent US copyright law may apply (as specifically discussed in the guideline) or other copyright law, such as that in Germany which is far more restrictive.

This image is a copyvio. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, these are the points stated in the guideline that refer to the parts of a map not copyrightable: There are "originality" and "minimal creativity" requirements for copyright in the US. If the components of the map are "entirely obvious" the map will not be copyrightable. For example, an outline map of the state of Texas, or one of the US showing the state boundaries is not copyrightable. (Not creative.) Ditto maps that use standard cartographic conventions, like a survey map. (Not original.) ... Even for maps which are copyrighted, not all the contents are subjected to copyright. ... copyright does not protect facts ... copyright protects only expression, not facts; the expression protected must be the product of intellectual creativity and not merely labor, time, or money invested; the protected elements of the resulting work are precisely those that reflect this intellectual creativity, and no more. This is the conclusion of a court of law ... As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely: Place names: Those are not copyrightable. Colors: For example, the colors representing area features on a topographic map, such as vegetation (green), water (blue), and densely built-up areas (gray or red). Colors are not copyrightable, either. Symbols and map keys: Cannot be protected by copyright, even if the mapmaker invented truly original ones. Geographic or topographic features: Those are facts, and facts are not copyrightable. Whatever the source, the parts copied by the author are only borders and reliefs, therefore not covered by copyright. European boundaries and reliefs were discovered and described long before 2005, therefore in Germany they are considered 'databases' too. No, this image is not a copyvio. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 06:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not understood the guideline. It does not say that all maps are public domain. The text you copied here vaguely describes an interpretation of US copyright law. It says nothing about complex relief graphics, which is a major creative component of this map.

If you want to argue that the underpinning map is COM:TOO, then first, find the underpinning map, find the source, find the publisher and country of publication.

Without any of this information precautionary principle applies and this is a copyright violation.

Instead if you want to make a proposal that on Commons all maps with boundaries and relief mapping should be public domain, raise it at COM:VP/C. --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info raised the DW guideline at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#COM:DW#Maps_used_to_argue_that_most_maps_are_public_domain for wider discussion. --Fæ (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Shapes and borders on a map are just the projection of geographical measurements, cannot be copyrighted for that --Sailko (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a non-starter. All maps are based on "geographical measurements". Fundamentally the representation of the contour features are artwork, not mechanical representations.

  Secondly there is no source for this map, you have no idea how it was created. To say it "cannot be copyrighted" is nonsense. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's your opinion. The reliefs background is also really de minimis. You can hardly see it. --Sailko (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, our understanding of European law is that map features like this, which are clearly artistic, are copyrighted. They are fundamental to this map. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Neutral (dubitative). If this map is a copyrighted artwork with conjectural contour features, it's impossible to improve it, following the scientific sources as [1] or [2]. Too bad... A scientific representation is here [3]. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Claude Zygiel: perhaps you have confused the subject of the dispute, the problem is not the haplogroups map itself, but the underpinning map with the borders and reliefs of Europe. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 13:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slight tangent, but the "scientific" link you give is orthodiet.org which itself scraps their information from eupedia.com, which is not a scientific site, but an open forum. BTW, anything published at eupedia is all rights reserved.

As Fulvio314 mentions this DR is about the copyright of the map used. So far not a single contributor to this DR has suggested a source, nor even the country of publication. The precautionary principle applies and this file as a derived work has to be presumed to be a copyright violation. --Fæ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fæ: , @Fulvio314: , thanks. The underpinning backgroud is almost not visible, and I believed that when a derivative work has more than 7 big differences from the original, there is no more copyviol? Yes Eupedia is a forum, but what I mean is that the "pie charts" are the best representation of the genetic reality of each territory. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens the oceans are about ⅓ of the entire image, and they are highly visible. --Fæ (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Claude Zygiel: There is not such a rule as "7 differences". You should focus on physical details themself, that are not invented by the author and hence copied from an unknown source. Are they invented by creativity or artistic talent of anybody or they are only facts not involving human ingenuity? In other words, we can ask to ourself "are these physical details representable in different ways, depending on the aesthetic taste of the concerning author, or they are forced to that form by the reality of the things?" Please, correct your vote on this rationale. About the haplogroups representation, you can discuss it on the discussion page of the map. Thanks. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 06:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @Fæ: & @Fulvio314: if this map will be kept, I can modify it with an uniform blue on the oceans, and, if you are agree, "pie charts" following [4] by country and over the current colored background: may be this will prevent disputes, "inaccurate map" banners and new deletion requests in the future? --Claude Zygiel (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No.

1. The data in this diagram is a user created fantasy. There is no sourcing, no verification, there is so little indication of how it was made it cannot be replicated. It should not be used on any Wikipedia project, or anywhere else where this might be mistaken for "facts". This fails COM:HOST and should be deleted.
2. The underpinning map, in its entirety, is copyrighted. The arguments presented about that somehow random maps of outlines or geographic features, or artistic representations of land contours, are not copyrighted, are misunderstanding or bad interpretations of some random copyright summaries. Without even knowing the country of publication, this is a copyvio and should be deleted per COM:PRP. Any derivative that you try to make will still be a derivative of a work that you must presume is copyrighted.
3. The link you give to orthodiet.org, shows a map that is all rights reserved, and itself sourced to an open forum where users can created whatever fantasy they want. That's not published research, and again would be deliberately misleading material if used on Wikipedia articles, or anywhere else where "facts" need verification. Again material like this blatently fails to comply with COM:HOST. Commons is not an open forum for anyone to publish what they would like to try to prove by misusing human genetics research.

--Fæ (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Claude Zygiel: If there is copyvio, just modifying the ocean will not solve the problem. Instead, if pd-map is applicable then the ocean can remain as is. The remaining (kind) proposal of a new type or a more accurate map should be discussed outside this deletion request, since here and now the problem is copyvio of contours and relief on the background. The right place for these improvements is the discussion page of the map.

@Fæ:

1. The data about haplogroups and their accuracy or source or using this map in any Wikipedia project is not a matter of deletion. It is not the role of Commons to adjudicate on subject-matter disputes (see Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view) This map is used in more than 50 wiki, so, the educational value makes it suitable to Commons:Project_scope.
2. This is your opinion and it is under discussion here and at Village pump.
3. The same as point 1. (Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 14:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The response was to the idea that someone waste their time working on changing the underpinning map while preserving the user created fantasy that sits on top of it. What a pointless waste of time. The only reason this map is being used is human error, it fails basic original research policy on all those projects so this mass usage is plainly stupid and contradictory.

In the meantime, this is a copyvio and nobody has even suggested publication country or publication date. Bizarre the amount of effort being expended trying to argue that a copyright violation and unpublished original research has any actual educational value. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep borders and reliefs are simply facts and are not invented by artists / creators. There is no copyright on this kind of graphic, since you cannot invent borders of your taste. There is only one way to draw Europe in such a simple form. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.96.223.250 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

This is legally and factually untrue. --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unclear source, unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]