Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mexico states blank.png

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mexico states blank.png

This file was initially tagged by Fæ as no source (No source since) Jordi (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Keep The source is given clearly on the file description page ("Blank Mexico States Map, for localizations. Made by Jacob Rus."). There is no reasonable doubt about this statement and @Fæ fails to justify his deletion request. The file is very widely used, cf. Category:Blank maps of Mexico. Nearly all the maps listed in the Category:Locator maps of states of Mexico and its sub-categories are based on this work (several hundreds), and there are many other identical and/or derived maps listed within these and other categories for maps of Mexico (like, for example, File:Mexico Map.svg, or File:Mexican states.png, or File:Mexico template.svg, or File:Mexico blank with state XML comments.svg, or File:Mexico Place Names.jpg, or File:Porcentaje de la victoria de MdlMH por estado, 1982.svg and many, many more). No valid reason for deletion seems to exist.--Jordi (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete The claim that this map is 100% user created is patently absurd. This map is not correctly sourced. A rationale based on waiving at "other stuff" is not verification of copyright. --Fæ (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The same blank map is used in many hundreds of files all over Commons (some of which cited above) and it seems to have been originally uploaded in 2005 by Jacob Rus, well known for his maps of Mexico at that time. There is nothing surprising in this map. It is not necessary to have been 100% user created. It is irrelevant if he used a mapping tool or traced the state limits from an atlas or how he got his map done, since the data is free and not protectable by copyright. The only protected content is the individual shape of this map which cannot be questioned by mere suspicion.--Jordi (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

derivative works must be addressed. A rationale of "it's a map it must be free", is neither a source, nor a valid copyright release. --Fæ (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"Made by Jacob Rus" is clear enough to understand that there is no derivative work involved. The physical shape of Mexico is not protectable, and the individual shape shown here in this map should be the work of the uploader. To think that the uploader was lying is mere suspicion without any justified ground.

Furthermore, the same shape established in this map is widely used in many hundreds of files and pages all over Wikimedia Commons and its sister projects. If you really think this map is a copyvio, all the other maps of Mexico used in the Wikimedia universe would be copyvios either.--Jordi (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Most people fail to understand copyright, that's not accusing them all of "lying".

This is not an own work, the uploader did not have the power to fly above Mexico and draw this on their computer from memory. PRP applies, the source needs to be declared and verifiable. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

He did not need to fly above Mexico nor to draw the map from memory, he only needs an atlas or more and trace or copy the limits by own drawing, this is enough to create his own copyright. Precautionary principle cannot apply because there is no significant (= serious) doubt about the copyright of this file, it is clearly stated "Made by Jacob Rus" and no previous author is known whose copyright could be infringed. All the rest is mere suspicion, lack of AGF.--Jordi (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems pointless to keep on pointing out the same facts and policy. This is a fundamental misinterpretation of how copyright of derived works is applied. Works do not become free just because someone traces them and sticks their name on it. You can ask for feedback on your views at COM:VP/C. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental misinterpretation is yours. Drawing a map from reliable data is not forbidden, and the reliable data itself is not protected by copyright, only the drawing. Our policy is AGF.--Jordi (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Info There seems to be an older version of the same map created by User:Ahoerstemeier here. The original drawing dated from 30 August 2003 looks like this.

If this is true, @Fæ was right in their suspicion that the statement "Made by Jacob Rus" is not correct. However, the solution is not to delete the image but to replace the statement "Made by Jacob Rus" by the correct attribution to @Ahoerstemeier. Since the original template made by @Ahoerstemeier is of free use, the upload by user @Jacobolus (Jacob Rus) did not constitute a copyvio, only the own attribution has to be corrected.--Jordi (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Info Detailed analysis of File:Mexico_template.png. There are 3 very different maps in the file history. The final/live version is from a 2006 upload. They are different resolutions and even the islands on the final version are absent from earlier versions, so very clearly the last version was not derived in any way from the earlier versions. The first poor quality graphic was uploaded by Ahoerstemeier and especially because of the dubious blanked key box, looks like it was harvested from some website, the last version is the version in use in various derivatives and was uploaded by Pseudomoi (talk · contribs · logs · block log). No sourcing information was added, not even a claim of "own work" by Pseudomoi. No presumption of "own work" can or should be made when even the original uploader never made such a claim. The uploader has been absent from all projects since 2013, so is unavailable for comment. --Fæ (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You are right that there are some significant differences between @Ahoerstemeier's drawing and the actual template, which is identical though with the file uploaded by @Jacobolus in 2005. The version uploaded in 2006 by @Pseudomoi is the same drawing as the present file. So we are back at the beginning and have to assume that the statement "Made by Jacob Rus" is correct. Different resolutions or colors do not matter, only the drawing is of relevance for copyright.--Jordi (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The copyright claim of CC-BY-SA and "Made by Jacobolus" is not credible. This is not a user created work of fiction, it is a precise and detailed map of Mexico including the breakdown of the country by states. It is copied from an undeclared source. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

See above. There is no way to declare the statement "not credible" only because you think it could be copied from an undeclared source. Exactely because it is a precise and detailed map of Mexico the range of creativity is very small and the copyright protection only extends to the creative aspect, not to the facts contained in the data source or atlas used. All the rest is free data. The undeclared source doesn't matter and doesn't destroy the own work of the uploader, even if the result is very similar to an undeclared source. But we were talking about this above.--Jordi (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems illogical reasoning. You appear to claim that any copyrighted map which is traced in detail by someone cannot be a derived work, and that it is bad faith to ask for a verifiable source. Secondly the idea that this map was traced is a fantasy, it's a question of applying Occam's razor to deduce that this professional quality map was taken from an undeclared source for which nobody has yet been able to determine copyright status.

Please do raise your novel views about copyright at COM:VP/C, as none of your statements asserting this image is copyright free has been verifiable, and none addresses the policy or official guidelines that must be addressed. A deletion discussion needs to stick to verifiable facts and policy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that this professional quality map was simply "taken" (if you mean just by copy and paste) from an undeclared source, please use Occam's razor yourself.

We have an older template made by @Ahoerstemeier in poor quality, but the shape is very similar. This older file was obviously manually drawn by @Ahoerstemeier in 2003. The most conclusive hypothesis would be that @Jacobolus has improved or re-engineered the same picture originally made by @Ahoerstemeier in 2005 with the help of better graphical tools. There is no hint that he stole it from another source, because the shape of both maps is too similar.

That copyright protection only extends to the creative aspects of a work is not a novel view, I certainly know what I am talking about :-) --Jordi (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly which file are you comparing to which this time? You have made several assertions, each of which on examination or analysis turned out to be false. Please be clear precisely which files or versions of files you are asserting prove something about copyright. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The chronological sequence of the blank maps used in Wikipedia is @Ahoerstemeier in 2003/04 ([1]), then @Jacobolus (Jacob Rus) in 2005 (present file). The map uploaded by @Pseudomoi in 2006 ([2]) is identical with the file made by Jacob Rus (2005). As you have correctly pointed out, @Ahoerstemeier's template (2003/04) is not identical with the map made by Jacob Rus (2005). Later we have another new blank map of Mexico drawn by @Yavidaxiu (2007) and the File:Mexico States blank map.svg (2008) which is based on @Yavidaxiu's work.--Jordi (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

These are vague theories, which do not match up with the evidence that can be seen by looking at the map versions you mention. Nothing here is demonstrable evidence that addresses the serious doubt about copyright for this deletion request that you created, and none of these unprovable assertions addresses the original no source tag added to this image. --Fæ (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no serious doubt about copyright. The zeal to delete all these files is yours, please don't blame me for that.--Jordi (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No sources = no verification = doubt. This is not about deletion. Had you invested your volunteer time in to finding the original map source, rather than creating this deletion request, a lot of time would be saved. --Fæ (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The source is given clearly on the file description page ("Blank Mexico States Map, for localizations. Made by Jacob Rus."). We are entering in a circle, I think we can wait for decision now.

Only to add that I was the one who during our discussions in the last days invested time in finding original map sources, and this is the reason why we are here because I found the map "made by Jacob Rus" when I looked for the underpinning map of the File:Mapa de lenguas de México + 100 000.png.--Jordi (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I followed your advice and searched for some more similar files, but I wasn't able to identify any map previous to the already mentioned. What gets more and more obvious is that if we follow your rationale ("No sources = no verification = doubt" -> deletion request) there will not be any map of Mexico left on Commons. There is not a single similar file I found on Commons which gives more sources than the name of the author or refers to one of the yet mentioned maps. There are hundreds of maps based on Jacob Rus' file which all would be deleted if you succeed. The 2007 map of Mexico drawn by @Yavidaxiu is new and does not depend on Jacob Rus, but it gives only @Yavidaxiu's name and nothing more. Same applies to File:Blank map of Mexico.svg by @Keepscases from 2010 which also has many derived maps, especially nearly all Mexican general election results. The widely used location map Mexico States blank map.svg is based on @Yavidaxiu's map and would be deleted as well. The widely used files Mexico template.svg and Mexico Map.svg would also be deleted because they are based on Jacob Rus. Independent maps like the small map made by Alex Covarrubias (2007), also widely used, cannot be kept, because the only source is the name of Alex Covarrubias. And so on.

This approach is completely impracticable.--Jordi (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Open Street Map. Natural Earth. CIA. It's not that hard to find correctly freely licensed or public domain modern maps. --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The maps you are deleting are already freely licensed or public domain. If you want to replace all these existing maps step by step by new and better sourced ones, nobody will stop you. But you cannot arbitrarily delete this or that map without considering the consequences.--Jordi (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction: "you are deleting" is false, you created this deletion request. If you wanted to fix the information, you need only add the correct and verifiable sourcing information. --Fæ (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Keep The map was completely made by me, based on following the style of some existing USA state templates on Wikipedia, but with shapes for Mexico. Any elements that I pulled from elsewhere (e.g. the coordinates of coastlines or borders) are not protectable by copyright (frankly the final product is not much of a “creative” work, and shouldn’t be protectable by copyright either). If I remember correctly I got the specific coordinates here from a vector map published by the Mexican government, but it doesn’t really matter. This whole discussion is absurd. –Jacobolus (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Also note that File:Mexico_template.png was created *after* I made this map, by someone who copy/pasted it, with a slightly different gray color. (Which is entirely fine by me. If you want you can put my GFDL/CC copyright onto that file too. It also should not be deleted if anyone is using it in Wikimedia projects.) You can see the original there was a quite different yellow monstrosity. –Jacobolus (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Fæ if you care so much, why don’t you redraw your own new blank map of Mexico, and replace all uses of this one with the new version. After that you can freely delete this file from 2005, and nobody will mind. The results will be largely visually indistinguishable, and everyone else is going to think you are wasting your time, but it might set your mind at ease. –Jacobolus (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a fallacy to claim that no simple maps showing boundaries, coastlines, rivers or mountains can be copyrighted. This is much repeated, but there's nothing in copyright law, or by case precedence, that makes this a fact, or that allows tracing or other reproductions of any copyrighted maps and reselling without this being a breach of copyright.

The "why don’t you redraw your own new blank map" as a way to close down all questions about copyright is bad faith and ridiculous. There are a lot of verifiably public domain maps of all the countries of the world. Anyone can correctly reuse those and ensure the sources are quoted.

It is false to say "the map was completely made by me", you copied other maps and you have not declared your sources. Copyright is impossible to verify until you do so. --Fæ (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am glad @Jacobolus showed up following my invitation at his English Wikipedia user page.

Copyright protection only extends to the creative aspects of a work. In the case of a map this is mainly the drawing. Of course it is possible to trace or draw a map infringing the copyright of your model. This happens if you copy the protectable individual creative aspects inherent to the original. If the line you trace or copy has no individual creative content but follows strictly the given coordinates, there is no copyright violation because the line was not protectable.

We now have an author who reassures us that he has drawn the map by himself using the coordinates he extracted from a map published by the Mexican government. So @Fae's suspicion that the map was simply copied from an undeclared source and not drawn by the uploader himself is refuted. Drawing a map from reliable data is not forbidden, and the reliable data itself is not protected by copyright, only the drawing. The copyright claim "Made by Jacob Rus" is therefore credible and proven. We have no more doubt about the copyright status of the file, no further action can be justified.

I do not think that it was plainly "bad faith" by @Fae to ask the uploader to reassure that he has really made the map. The professional quality makes it possible to suspect that it was just a copy and paste work from an existing file. But now it would be "bad faith" not to accept the uploader's explanation going on with the motion to delete the map. So I would like to invite you to change your mind and put "keep" in the template.--Jordi (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Mexican government" could mean many things, not all Mexican government supported contractors, project conglomerates, or local government entities publish everything as public domain. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you establish that something is “verifiably public domain” by your standard, if you consider state borders to be copyrighted? –Jacobolus (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

By looking at the license that the map publisher has given their map.

Declare the sources and copyright can be verified. --Fæ (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The state borders cannot be copyrighted. What can be copyrighted is the creative manner you draw the state borders. So if you just copy and paste or make a photocopy of a border or coast line drawn by another person, of course you can infringe their copyright. If you extract the coordinates from an existing map, copyrighted or not, and draw another map of your own following the reliable data obtained from your model, there is no problem, as long as the coordinates you use are just the hard data the original map is based on and not a product of the creative or artistic activity spent by the copyright owner of the original map to complete their work. So "looking at the license" is not enough. It is not necessary that the original map is free from copyright. The original map may be protected by copyright, if you do not copy it in a merely reproductive manner but use it as a reference for your own work. The result of your own work may be very similar to the original map (in the case of mapping not unusual), copyrighted or not, if only the individual creative or artistic aspects of the original map are warranted. Only these aspects can be protected by copyright.--Jordi (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

By "state borders cannot be copyrighted" + "extract the coordinates from an existing map, copyrighted or not" you seem to be saying that no scanned or otherwise digitally reproduced map of any country that is a map of state borders can be copyrighted, regardless of who made it or which country it was published in. Presumably that means that if you take photos of maps in a shop, then reproduced outlines of them, you can resell them. Link for that part of copyright law please, especially the copyright law of Mexico, thanks.

My view is that this would break copyright law, and be an illegal act. I would be interested in seeing the legal cases that established the opposite.

Reminder, this is a tangent to this DR that you created. What is required is not more unproven copyright theories, but a very, very, simple declaration of sources and copyright can be verified. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You are simplifying too much, please read carefully what I wrote before you draw your own reckless conclusions. The question is not if you obtain the coordinates from an existing map and if this map is copyrighted or not, but if these coordinates are the product of individual creative activity or just data. Any map can be copyrighted, that means you are not allowed to just copy it. Of course you are allowed to recreate a very similar map based on the same common and reliable data, especially if you draw it by your own and not just scan or otherwise digitally or mechanically reproduce your model.

Your conclusion that we need a simple declaration of sources to veryfy the copyright is simplistic. What do you want to prove with this declaration? That the source was free from copyright? Would be fine, but is not necessary. What we really need is an even more simple declaration of the creator of this map that he has drawn it by himself and not merely scanned or otherwise digitally or analogically reproduced an existing copyrighted map made by another person. And we already have this declaration.--Jordi (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No, this map was derived from an existing, professional, map.

We don't need another 2,000 word essay full of rhetoric, tangents and unproven hypothetical copyright theories to avoid saying anything meaningful about the copyright of this map. This is not some peculiar exception to copyright law that everyone must be blind to, because anyone that wants to know whether it really is free or not, is a terrible person because they dared ask a question.

Source the original map and this derived work can be verified and this deletion request you created can be closed. COM:PRP and COM:L apply to this map as they do to all the uploads to this project. --Fæ (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "tangents". The person who asked for deletion (even speedy) of this widely used file is you, I don't know why you are trying to blame me for that. I was the one who has found this file and who showed it to you when I was looking for the underpinning map of the original file you questioned, but you were the one who tried to delete it as well.

You have not provided any proof for your statements. The author of the file told you again that he has made the map completely by himself. Of course it is bad faith if you, after hearing him and without new grounds for your suspicion continue stating the opposite. Also the unproven hypothetical copyright theories are yours, you are the one who repeatedly refers to "copyright law" without proving anything. The file is licensed like all other uploads to this project (I have seen many, many maps on Commons the last days, and the vast majority of them give only the name of the uploader/author and "own work" as a source), there is no serious doubt about copyright and only serious doubt about copyright can trigger "COM:PRP".

I don't think there is much more to talk about, so I will stop talking now, but of course I would welcome it if @Jacobulus gives us some more information about his source, if he can. Remind that the file was uploaded 15 years and 7 month ago, so it would be understandable if he has forgotten some details, but all he can tell us can be helpful, of course. Thx to u all.--Jordi (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been 15 years ago and I don’t precisely remember the details. In my understanding there is no copyright problem here, because the shapes of state borders are not copyrightable (other choices like the colors and line thicknesses were drawn from another GFDL map of US states; if you hunt around you could probably figure out which one). If you want Fae, you are welcome to make a new similar map from source data that you consider to have acceptable provenance (I don’t really understand what that would entail, because I don’t clearly understand how your idiosyncratic understanding of copyright law works), or you can find someone else to do so. I don’t personally have the time to do it, but there’s probably someone in the Wikimedia projects who could handle it; it’s not an inordinately complicated project. It seems like a waste of effort to me, but whatever floats your boat. I would strongly urge you to not summarily delete widely used graphics before you have a replacement in place. –Jacobolus (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction: A no source tag is not a speedy deletion. To resolve a no source tag one need only supply the source, this deletion nomination and this discussion has always been unnecessary, neither did I create them, so attacking me for this path being followed is to attack the wrong person.

With regard to copyright law, various unsourced counter-claims are made in this discussion about maps and copyright law which have no basis in project policies or copyright law. It is these assertions that require evidence, not the reverse.

With regard to the requirement to be able to verify copyright, this is covered by COM:L and COM:PRP, policies that are firmly grounded in the copyright law of all countries, and agreed by consensus at the start of this Wikimedia project. This map, and your responses, have failed to address those requirements. --Fæ (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• You call this kind of arguments "exsultation". I have shown you since beginning that COM:PRP only is to be used "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file" (emphasis in the original text). If there is no doubt, there is no way for suspicion and we have to stick with AGF.
• It is commonly known that copyright extends only to creative works (with other words: Copyright only extends to specific expressions of information, not to the information itself), this is so "in the copyright law of all countries" and of course Wikimedia Commons policies are based on this view, too.
• If you tag an image with "no source" you are willing to delete it automatically within seven days or so (speedy deletion). Of course it was necessary to stop this process in order to try to save this extremely widely used blank map we are talking about. If it lacks a source or other information, we have to look for it or correct the license and not initiate a semi-automatic deletion process.--Jordi (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to "save" this file, then confirm what source you took it from so that copyright can be verified.

You are correct to stick to COM:AGF, this states:

When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors should do their best to document the files they upload, and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate.

So complying with AGF policy confirms that anyone can and should question copyright where doubt exists, and AGF very clearly places the burden on the uploader to respond by providing correct and adequate information to verify copyright. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not take the image from any source. It was seemingly "made by Jacob Rus" and up to now we have not found anything that would contradict his statement, so there is no basis for significant doubt.--Jordi (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The lack of evidence, the lack of any copyright validation, and the professional nature of this map, a map that nobody could "invent" by sitting on their own in their bedroom without deriving the image for existing maps, means that Occam's razor applies.

COM:AGF Editors should do their best to document the files they upload, and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. is clear enough. --Fæ (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I share your opinion that the professional nature of this map can rise the question if it was really "made by Jacob Rus". Therefore I think it was justified to ask him about it, as I already told you (it was not "plainly bad faith"). But we already asked him and he has confirmed that the protectable shape of the map is his own work. If this is the case, and we have not found anything that would contradict his statement, the documentation is not incorrect or inadequate. So there is no basis for further doubt (would be bad faith), and of course not for deletion (the mere fact that the file is very widely used and cannot be deleted without damaging the project and its sister projects excludes this solution). It is also inadequate and in no way corresponding to AGF to demand more information more than 15 years after the map was drawn, because obviously there can be things lost in memory. If @Jacobolus remembers more details, he can help us, would be very fine, but if not, his statement is no less credible.--Jordi (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You are free to put a proposal to change COM:AGF, but the current wording applies to the copyright of this image. --Fæ (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The documentation is not "incorrect or inadequate", the file has the same kind of documentation as practically all other similar map files drawn by our users (name of the uploader and source "own work").

Even more striking, COM:AGF was created on may 16, 2010‎. And COM:PRP was created on september 5, 2008‎. We are talking about an upload from february 20, 2005. So, no "current wording applies", at all (sorry I forgot this argument before).

As I promised, I will stop talking now, this gets too repetitive and there is nothing more to say I think. Thx.--Jordi (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

a map that nobody could "invent" by sitting on their own in their bedroom – In February 2005 when I made this map I was in fact sitting in my bedroom (a college dorm), with my university-provided copy of Adobe Illustrator, and the state boundaries (IIRC) as published by the Mexican government. Taking the coordinates of a list of polygons and filling them in with gray, then adding a white border, is hardly rocket science. It doesn’t require a “professional” (though by that point I did have a few years of experience with amateur cartography, e.g. making maps of Mexico for my father’s academic books). Even you could do it, Fae, if you put some time and effort in. It would probably even take less of your time and effort than this pointless discussion. –Jacobolus (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 Info Well, now at last I have found a map with the identical shape on the Internet, it is published on a page named "Mapsof.net". Seemingly, users can upload their own works there. They do not say when it was uploaded there, so I don't know if the file was already there in 2004 and @Jacobolus and/or others took it from there or if someone uploaded it on their site when the file was already present on Wikimedia Commons. I don't even know if that site existed at the time we are talking about. The license they declare seems to be "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0", but I am not an expert in licensing details and perhaps misread their terms & conditions.--Jordi (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid throwing random stuff at the wall. If you think this is the source please research it before creating a tangent. The website did not exist before 2008. The terms state very clearly "you may download material displayed on the Site for non-commercial, personal use only". At best, this is one of many harvesting websites, in this case with less apparent traceability about uploaded files than Flickr and with legally conflicting statements about copyright. --Fæ (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I already told you I don't know what do you mean with "tangents". I also said that I cannot say if that site existed in february of 2005. If it was created in 2008, the file made by Jacob Rus was already on Commons when it was uploaded there (better for us). What I know is that the shape of the map is identical and that they say the following: "All the material (articles and images, otherwise specified) are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence. This licence foresees that you are free: * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work; * to make derivative works; * to make commercial use of the work." Nothing about "for non-commercial, personal use only".--Jordi (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid throwing unresearched random stuff at the wall, it in no way helps this deletion discussion. http://mapsof.net/terms --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course it helps, because the map published on that site has a free license and is identical with the one we are talking about. I already cited you the copyright statement (All the material (articles and images, otherwise specified) are published under ...). What you refer to are the terms of use of the site, nothing to do with the copyright status of the file.--Jordi (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No, random websites with non-existent traceability of anonymous uploads does not "help" anything. This is a tangent, it says nothing at all about the copyright of this file, in this DR that you created. The website is a harvesting site or mirror, the image that you found is highly likely to be an undeclared derived work of this file on Commons, and all the metadata and known facts, including the fact that there is no uploader and no file EXIF metadata, indicate that it was created years after the upload to Commons and the sourcing has been deliberately made opaque. The "license" is worse than meaningless, it is actively confusing and misleading.

Another version of the identical file is on Adobe Stock, where all rights are claimed by "António Duarte". If you believe what you read on random matching websites, then you must also believe that that named person has a potentially valid all rights reserved claim, and that they are backed by the lawyers of Adobe Stock.

Please stop throwing in thousand word tangents like hand grenades, rather than addressing copyright of this image being discussed in this DR.

If you want your deletion request to be meaningfully closed, then add evidence of the verifiable source, whether copyright free or not. --Fæ (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It is the only identical map I found on the Web. So if it is a fraudulent copy or undeclared derived work from Commons, as you point out with good reasons, we can rest assured, since this would not contradict the statement we already have that the uploader here on Commons has made the map.

Don't continue to blame me for your actions.--Jordi (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Good, tangent closed then.

What we need is evidence to verify copyright, or remove the file per COM:AGF, COM:L, COM:PRP as stated enough times for the message to be clear and policy to be understood. Thanks in advance. --Fæ (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Well no shit it has “identical shape”, we are talking about the shape of official state boundaries under a standard map projection, which do not change based on who plots the map. If you go get new map data (where by “new” I mean essentially the same, perhaps with a slight difference in resolution) from e.g. https://www.naturalearthdata.com, project it, and then fill in the states and stroke the borders, you will again get a map with “identical shape”. Fae: You are welcome to do this if you want, but it seems like a huge waste of time. –Jacobolus (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, your source was not NED. --Fæ (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you just having trouble reading? Obviously the source wasn’t Natural Earth, which did not exist in 2005. But my point is that the data source doesn’t really matter; any data source you choose will be essentially identical. The shape of state borders is not a copyright-protectable creative work. If you really care, I urge you to download the Natural Earth data and make your own map; it will be visually indistinguishable from the one here, but it will set your mind at ease. –Jacobolus (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The claim that this unsourced map of Mexico, with its state boundaries, cannot be copyrighted has been made several times. No legal evidence, or Commons policies have been produced that demonstrate this as a fact.

Policies have been linked and quoted which demonstrate the legitimate concern that this map is unsourced, cannot be verified against any validly freely licensed source and appears to be a possible copyright violation. Rhetoric alone does not stop those policies, and the standard reading of copyright law for detailed maps, existing. --Fæ (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

First, this is not an “unsourced map of Mexico”. I was the source. I made the map. You are right that the source of the data was not described (in 2005 I was just following typical Wikimedia style in my upload; the project was less full of pedantic busybodies at that time, and conventions were looser). I am fairly convinced that I got it from some file produced by INEGI, the official Mexican geographical institute. –Jacobolus (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want you can add a "state boundaries from https://www.inegi.org.mx" or the like. –Jacobolus (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are so concerned about copyright law, I urge you to find someone who is actually an expert on Mexican or international copyright law instead of relying on your own idiosyncratic impressions, and/or directly contact some staff person working for the Mexican Federal government to ask them for an official opinion about the copyright status of the coordinates of points on the borders of Mexican states. –Jacobolus (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fae is simplifying too much and therefore mixing up everything. There is no claim that this map of Mexico, with its state boundaries, cannot be copyrighted. Of course the map is copyrighted, the copyright owner is the person who has drawn the map. What cannot be copyrighted are the boundaries itself and the data the person who has drawn the map used to complete their work. We already talked about that and even evidence was linked, though every Wikimedia Commons Administrator should know these things. Also, there are no policies that have been linked and quoted which demonstrate that this map must be sourced more extensively than it was sourced from the beginning. This map is sourced as an "own work" and the only source absolutely necessary in these cases is the person who has made it. I think we now can be quite sure that we are talking with that person. This is all we had to confirm: That the person who is given as the author on the file description page has really drawn the map and not scanned or photocopied or otherwise mechanically reproduced an existing map drawn by another person. If this is the case, there can be no more doubt about copyright, because everything else does not matter for copyright.--Jordi (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jordi. Here is what my father (a career academic working in Mexico) says: “As far as I know, everything on INEGI is even more than public domain and open access, it's public property -- propiedad de la nación. Everyone I know cites INEGI -- and I assume copies the maps -- freely. That's what it exists for.” –Jacobolus (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

One more comment: sorry for my abrasive tone above. I’ve been in a grumpy mood for the past few days (weeks, months). I shouldn’t be taking it out on anyone else. All the best to everyone in these trying times. Jacobolus (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Only to add that the person who has drawn this map appears under their real name and presented theirself in an old homepage text from 2008 I think (I don't link to it for privacy reasons, but it is public and everybody can find it on the Web) as a "cartographer", so their statement is more than credible and the professional quality of the map is not really a reason for doubting their authorship.--Jordi (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Kept: per User:Jordi. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)