Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia

[edit]

No evidence that these maps are based on an original free map (or that they were created in a different manner that makes them free).

Eleassar (t/p) 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding; so am I: let's delete this page. Maps are based on publicly available information ("informacije javnega značaja") obtained from reality; reality can not be copyrighted. --Miha (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to lose nerves. See [1] and [2] for an explanation. Unless evidence is provided that these maps were derived from free original ones, they must be deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely contradictory and inconsistent. What's the difference if I say that the map is my own work (I decided to publish under Commons-compatible permissions) or if I say that it is based on OpenStreetMap, where someone else's guaranteed for it to be his own work (freely offered for further usage). --Miha (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Their content is published under the CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. I don't know the project in detail, but sincerely hope they apply similar deletion mechanisms. If it is found out that a map licensed to OSM actually derives from some other copyrighted map, it will surely be deleted. Otherwise, I suggest you ask this at Commons:Village pump. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: What is an "own map"? Eleassar says based on an original free map (or that they were created in a different manner that makes them free). This is a too strict way to discuss cartographic copyright and isn't practiced in cartographic reality (I'm a cartographer). There are only very few ways to get a really free (that means self-made) map: a) I start a triangulation, b) I hire a plain, make orthophotos and start to analyse them. Unfortunately this is impossible to do for a whole continent or the world. Even the PD licensed CIA maps use data created by other sources because they obviously weren't allowed to triangulate in every other country. And of course not all of their sources were PD, either. Additionaly boundaries and names of hills or rivers cannot be seen in an orthophoto. So in the end you always need some further sources. I don't know where the boundaries in OSM come from but we can be sure that they weren't made by someone following the boundary with a GPS.
Cartographers work differently. It is okay to use different (and copyrighted) sources as long as the threshold of originality is respected. It is forbidden to redraw an existing map but it is allowed to combine different sources to create a new, self-contained map. One way (beside a new graphic: colours, thickness of lines, elements which are shown...) for this is the cartographic generalisation. The boundaries in File:Slovenia municipalities.png are not the "real" boundaries. This is quite obvious when we compare the boundary between Slovenia and Hungary in this file and in Google Maps. The "real" boundaries were strongly generalised. This is the very own creation of the mapmaker and it is impossible to replicate this exactly, even by the same mapmaker. This makes a map an "own work" even if only one source was taken for it, lets say an administrative map of Slovenia. As a result of this all file of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of traditional regions of Slovenia, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europe countries.svg and most of this DR can be kept.

Please excuse the long text. The listed maps are very different, it is impossible to talk about them in two or three sentences. NNW (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the valuable input.
I have two questions:
  1. How we can be sure that the generalisation in the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of traditional regions of Slovenia and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europe countries.svg was done by the uploader and not just copied from somewhere? The source maps are not known so that we may compare whether there is any original contribution.
  2. GURS, which is cited as the source of some files, e.g. File:Slovenia municipalities.png, states at its page: "All rights reserved". What about it?
I've asked User:Gap for File:Postaja tolmin map.jpg.[3] The author cited in the map is Gašper Šubelj, which could easily be him. As for the OTRS: I guess it does not apply to the map but to the location of the barracks. It's a general permission for the usage of material from the pages of Slovenian Ministry of Defence and I doubt this map was prepared by them, because in general this is work of the Geodetic Institute of Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We cannot be sure, we just have to trust. It's like with every photo that is uploaded here. A friend could have taken my camera but I upload it as an own work. Nobody knows. Maps like these can be made quite easily, you don't have to be cartographer.
Ok,  I withdraw my nomination for this file. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Uh, I missed that it was taken from a website (shame on me). If the boundaries are exactly the same then it is not okay. And I wouldn't agree Rarelibra that data which costs 0 € and is free for commercial purposes is PD. The terms demand that the source is named everywhere, that is different from PD. Unfortunately the Terms and Conditions are from 2008, Rarelibra uploaded it 2006. So we don't know if the terms have changed. NNW (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is based on this image; the boundaries are therefore not exactly the same, however not much different. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the file description Rarelibra mentioned a shapefile. He/she must have downloaded it from the GURS website, converted it to SVG and rendered a PNG from it. NNW (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep File:Slovensko-hrvaška meja pri Metliki.svg (free draw; the same applies for Slovenian municipalities.png) --Miha (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination for this file. For File:Slovenia municipalities.png, see above. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is the list of files that are still a copyvio or not clarified to be free:
I personally worked with this map to get it right - park border (my own work with help from another map), country names, info below, added location of Lendavsko jezero (orignating from http://www.naravovarstveni-atlas.si/ISN2KJ/profile.aspx?id=NV@ZRSVN). So, if this is still copyvio, then let it be - and I really dont know how to draw a map from a scratch. --Pinky sl (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination for this file. I think this meets the criteria for "own work" above. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, background map is a screenshot of the 1:500.000 map that can be seen here: http://www.naravovarstveni-atlas.si/ISN2KJ/profile.aspx?id=NV@ZRSVN. This map is definitely not free. You could redraw that map with OSM data. NNW (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: The data is not problematic, but the background is. --Miha (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* File:Postaja tolmin map.jpg - OTRS confirmation requested  I withdraw my nomination The uploader Gap self-identifies as Gašper Šubelj. See e.g. [4] ('User' in the file history).
Per [6], GURS had no different terms of usage in November 2006 than they're now. Eleassar (t/p) 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I agree with NNW:
    • These are maps redrawn from public information. Information is not copyrightable - just like I can write an article about an insect species using bibliography, I can draw a map using information from bibliography. For example, for the municipal limits maps, all maps of municipalities in Slovenia are expected to show the same limits. Then, showing the same limits is no evidence of copyvio, and further evidence should be provided to delete it.
    • You are assuming all maps are copyvios except when strong evidence of own work is provided. This should work in the opposite way, as usual in Commons: we assume good faith in "own work" statements, unless we find evidence of copyvio. If we were going to delete maps just based on "no proof of own work", we should delete 90% of Commons content by the same reason. I have uploaded some thousands of photos taken by myself but I can't prove I haven't stolen them - fortunately for me, in most countries I'm innocent until proven guilty, just like these maps.
Anyway, some images might be copyvios. For example, File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG seems to be based on a topographical map. It shouldn't be hard to find which map is it and find if it is free. Then, such maps should be discussed in a one by one basis. I suggest closing this deletion request and opening individual deletion requests for maps with evidence of being copyvios.
Btw., please notice that File:Mapa3 o.jpg is a map of Slovakia, not Slovenia.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, particularly in regard to Mapa3 o (it's interesting that you're the first one who has noticed this). I think we have already mainly determined which works are copyvios and which not. As for those files derived from GURS, I agree that it could not be derived from this specific file, but see this SHP file from the same source (the same map in a vector format). As written in File:Slovenia municipalities.png, "Converted from Shapefile to SVG with shp2svg and prepared for Wikipedia". See also [7], listing such images all ascribed to GURS. This does seem like "redrawing a map" to me. Or using a copyrighted database, if you wish. And the GURS site states "All rights reserved." For File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG, it has already been established above that the original map is non-free, because it was published in 1947. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This case with Slovakian map is clear showcase that deleting images based on categories is not a good practise at all. How can it be copyvio, if it is almost unrecognizable even to Slovene users :-) For the map about Morgan line near Trieste, I guess it would be nice if nominator for deletion can also ask some experienced user to recreate it, since it has military, historical and such values. --xJaM (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:Občina_Miklavž_na_Dravskem_polju.png (and the other derivative works of File:Obcine_Slovenija_2006.svg; there should be app. 200 of them) - it is public domain, please see the explanation here --Miha (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Informacije javnega značaja" (publicly available information) are generally not free, but in this specific case the GURS explicitly allowed it's further usage at the time. However, the government changed several times since 2006 (as also did the borders between the municipalities) and the Terms of usage have changed according to the changes in law, but this doesn't affect our maps as the data was acquired under the old terms.
According to Price list "Grafični podatki o občini" (graphical data about a municipality) are still free of charge, even for commercial purposes. There is no also other way to depict the borders apart from taking the official data. (To illustrate how absurd this case is: Imagine we would copyright the border with Austria even though they put it into the public domain - the very same border). Moreover, as explained here there was quite a lot of additional work needed to convert raw geographical data into the current graphical representation. --Miha (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miha, free of charge does not mean copyright-free and their usage is strictly limited. For 2006, what you mean with "the GURS explicitly allowed it's further usage at the time"? Where can this be verified? What were the conditions for this "further usage"? It's unclear. The database copyright has been the same since 1995.
XJaM, anyone can ask some experienced user to recreate the map, it's not my job. Currently I'm removing non-free files, then I'll do something else, for example complete the article on breast cancer. The nomination was not based on the country but on the category and the stated reason for it doesn't depend on whether it was a map of Slovenia or Slovakia. At full resolution this map of Slovakia is clear enough to be copyrightable (also confirmed by NNW). --Eleassar (t/p) 10:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader claims so, he even provided with links (in the meantime these pages were deleted - 404 error), it cannot be verified anymore so we have to trust him. The burden of proof is in this case up to you. --Miha (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is the proof: [8] As you may see, this was added yesterday. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep unless the plan was to attract someones attention for some issues (unknown to me) then it's pretty silly to list the whole category for deletion with a whole bunch of different images. Either way I agree with others, copyright cannot be created when drawing out of PD.--Avala (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: File:Občina Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png and File:KrasMapka.png are obviously not "based on GURS' map", but a version of the free File:Obcine Slovenija 2006.svg with highlights, so  Keep both. I don't know why it says otherwise in the description. — Yerpo Eh? 08:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed that the "free File:Obcine Slovenija 2006.svg" is itself based on GURS. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "based on GURS" means based on the map you linked (http://e-prostor.gov.si/uploads/RTEmagicC_OB_m_07.jpg.jpg ), I don't see the point of claiming that a detailed svg is based on such an small and less detailed jpg. Furthermore, it just shows municipality borders - e.g. public information non copyrightable. Or do you claim that municipality borders in Slovenia are copyrighted?--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, a vector version of the image is available at the same site; please note the source: "Converted from Shapefile to SVG with shp2svg". The borders can't be copyrighted, but the database containing their coordinates and in particular the map that shows them could be, and I have not seen any evidence that they were not. On the contrary, the site clearly states "All rights reserved." --Eleassar (t/p) 09:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As referred to at the description page of File:Obcine Slovenija 2006.svg, the dataset was free to use for all purposes at the time the file was created. On what do you base your opinion that this is not important? Current terms forbid the use for commercial purposes (see [9], tab "Brezplačni podatki"), but this cannot apply retroactively for older versions that were free. — Yerpo Eh? 09:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat: per [10], GURS had no different terms of usage in November 2006 than they're now. And this file was uploaded in November 2008. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-copyright restriction, similar to the one prohibiting commercial use of reproductions of cultural monuments. Databases containing naked facts without a creative element aren't protected under Slovene copyright law, as far as I understand ZUJF (although articles 8 and 141.a conflict a little and 141.a is very poorly defined). Moreover, the "database right" is not regarded a copyright at all in Commons. — Yerpo Eh? 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons does consider the database right (see here) and per the Slovene copyright and related rights act,[11] databases are protected for the period of 15 years. Article 8 states: "Collections of works or of other material, such as encyclopaedias, anthologies, databases, collections of documents, etc., which, by virtue of selection, coordination or arrangement of their contents, are individual intellectual creations [i.e. a copyrightable work per Article 5], shall be deemed independent works." It is true, per [12] (pg. 28), that those maps that are part of an official text can be used freely; see e.g. [13] (Article 2) or [14] (Article 3) etc. However, the GURS database in general and the discussed map as the graphic presentation of its significant part are copyrighted because they have never been published as part of an official text. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how is a list of official coordinates a "collection of material which, by virtue of selection, coordination or arrangement of its contents, is an individual intellectual creation". Article 141.a, on the other hand, clearly states that database right is independent of copyright and I'm not sure how is that regarded on Commons. I don't know German good enough to understand whether the German case is completely or only superficially analogous. — Yerpo Eh? 06:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you've stated and also is written e.g. in [15] (pg. 60), a database is an author's and thus copyrightable work only in the case it is an individual intellectual creation, as demanded by Article 8. My opinion is that this map, which is a graphic presentation of a significant part of the Registry of Spatial Units (Register prostorskih enot, RPE), qualifies as an intellectual creation due to the manner in which it was assembled.[16] From the excerpt there one may see that a lot of effort, knowledge and experience was put into creating it. The question is then whether it is an individual creation. Per this comment, a map would be an individual creation if it had "a cartographic generalisation and a graphic of its own". I don't think it has had any generalisation and also doesn't have its own graphic.[17] In my opinion it therefore does not qualify as an individual creation and is thus not an author's work, which means I have to admit you're correct in this. I have followed this court case in my interpretation.
The remaining question is then whether Commons considers the database right. As can be seen from this diff, the database right was considered part of the policy until 7 September 2012, when it was removed by User:Rd232 for an unknown reason. As I have not found an explanation and agreement about this removal at the policy's talk page, I've asked him to explain why he has removed it. I guess it was considered relevant only for the United Kingdom, as it has been moved to Commons:Copyright rules by territory - full#United Kingdom. Its discussion there and its mention at Commons:Derivative works#Maps apparently mean that Commons does consider it relevant for the material inclusion. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After this conversation, I'd conclude that the database right is not accepted as the reason for deletion from Commons; however, users uploading these files may be liable for not respecting it. The files based on GURS should therefore be relicensed with {{PD-ineligible}}. If I'm wrong, I ask the concluding administrator (or anyone else) to correct me. The remaining ones, recognised as copyvios, should be deleted:
--Eleassar (t/p) 12:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to add some disclaimer explaining database and property rights to files in question. I agree with deletion of the remaining files. — Yerpo Eh? 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've asked User:Rd232 if there is some available.[18] --Eleassar (t/p) 20:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eleassar, now it is my turn to respond. First off, there is no possible way with the resolution of the image that you are claiming was used compared to the resolution of the map that I created. Each and every single map that I created is digitized in its own right by my hands from sources that are available as a reference. As I stated, I started with a SHP file, converted it to SVG, but then I altered it, by hand, to be updated to each and every single source map as accurately as possible so that the boundaries may match even the countries that surround Slovenia. You have the burden of proof and you haven't proven anything. GURS data is only restricted for COMMERCIAL usage. If it is used as a base map for modifications to create a resultant map, there is nothing wrong with that (and nothing wrong with my authored map being used under GNU with my own permission). So kindly remove your request and stop going after maps with what amounts to accusations without proof. Your efforts are noteworthy but your methods are suspect, at best. Rarelibra (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:Steiner_Alpen.png (even though it is based on a map found on copyrighted website, the borders are raw data which can not be copyrighted; in comparison with other maps still proposed for deletion no other copyrightable elements (such as background) are visible). --Miha (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been recognised above as a copyvio by three users. It is evident that not only borders, but also e.g. the outlines of rivers and lakes, the outline of the coast etc, have been directly taken and depicted in the same or almost the same manner like on the copyrighted map. As stated, it copies the style of the original map. A personal contribution cannot be find. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally nominated (with the same rationale as File:Steiner_Alpen.png):

--Eleassar (t/p) 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely lost in this discussion. We started a discussion about a lot of maps and a quite general reason to delete. Now, we are discussing a few maps with different reasons. I suggest closing this discussion and starting again a new deletion request for each map, or for each group of map that fit the same rationale.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and apologise. In short, we've reached consensus about deleting as a copvio:
Today, I have also added File:Alps_-_Regions_(Eastern_Alps).png to this request, because it has been made in the same way as File:Steiner Alpen.png.
I have no problem starting a new discussion if needed. However, this short list should be viewed as the remaining non-free files. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If map of "Steiner Alpen" is problematic, so are also all the derivative maps of this file: Bayrische Voralpen.png, Berchtesgadener Alpen.png, Bergamasker Alpen.png, ... (see Category:Maps_of_the_Alps). For this a new discussion really should be opened. Personally, I don´t think that the process of creating the maps on which files on Commons are based as regards the basic shapes (lakes and rivers you were referencing to) was a creative process which is a requirement for one to be entitled of holding copyrights. The same applies for File:Mapa3 o.jpg (it's a Slovakian map, maybe they have different legalisation that makes all maps a priori free). Additionally, at least File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG and File:Kras v Sloveniji.jpg should be kept or archived elsewhere (because of valuable data) unless someone redraws these maps using a free background. --Miha (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem opening a new request for other files similar to "Steiner Alps", when this one gets deleted. For the Slovak map being copyright free, this is nonsense. Section 7 clearly mentions cartographic works as copyrightable. In any case, the burden of proof is on the uploader or one that wishes to keep it. It should only be kept if such evidence is provided. As for the remaining two, the criteria for deletion are clear and copyvios can't be kept just because there is no free alternative available at the moment. It will be great, though, if you archive them elsewhere (mind only that they can't be used under the fair use). --Eleassar (t/p) 12:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For better transparency, a new request should be opened for the entire series, before deleting "Steiner Alps". --Miha (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency is not a factor in deciding whether an image should be kept (provide a clear case if you think otherwise). Copyvio is. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it can be seen from the discussion above, it is plausible whether or not the particular photo should be deleted. As this also applies to other pictures in the series a separate discussion should be opened. --Miha (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I were a sysop - which I am not - it would be hard for me to find the rationale and discussion about each of the remaining proposed file are copyvios or not. This is my reason to suggest a new request.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The withdrawals and the image added at the end do seem to make this a bit confusing. A new DR should be opened in order to facilitate a more clear discussion. INeverCry 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Maps_of_Slovenia&oldid=313899018"