Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Middle earth map showing prominent locations.PNG

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

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

Image:Middle earth map showing prominent locations.PNG

[edit]

For the same reason:

Sorry, it's a derivative work. Middle earth is purely fictional and thus in contrast to factual data protected by copyright. Would be fair use only. Also please note that commons is not a storage for your personal art, drawings with non-technical, artistic content, etc, because it's original research. Only famous artists, please.--Rtc 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have advised the Middle Earth portal on en.Wikipedia who articles extensively use this media. Also as some of the maps are on en.Wikipedia featured articles I have left a message there. Gnangarra 10:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Rtc 10:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rtc, as we discussed on the ring image previously, I didn't think that 'derivative works' applied to anything 'representing' some aspect of a copyrighted work. I said then that if it does then all of the above should go, but let's be clear on the law. The most extreme case here would be Image:Aman Valinor.jpg. Tolkien never created a map of Aman. Neither did any of the various movie productions. Thus, this map is wholly an original creation except that it uses names from Tolkien's stories and attempts to place them in a way fitting his descriptions (A was west of B, C was nearby D, et cetera). Is an artwork based on a copyrighted written description really 'derivative'? That is, does 'derivative works' cover so wide a ground that it is impossible to have any 'free use' image of any character / item / map / whatever described or shown in any copyrighted work of fiction? You seemed to say it was before, but I don't understand how that can be given the vast array of apparently contradictory images in existence. I have maps of various parts of Middle-earth created and sold by half a dozen different people.... all themselves listing a separate copyright for the work. If 'derivative' functions the way you say, that would mean that they all must have received permission from the Tolkien estate, but shouldn't there be a notice to that effect somewhere on the copyright page if that were the case? Or to put it another way... how did so many images get onto Commons and stay here for so long? I don't know copyright law, but... I know what I see, and it doesn't seem consistent. --70.111.41.133 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) Image:Aman Valinor.jpg. There are two problems here: 1) it's a copyright violation, indeed, and a very clear one, from the context and the intention of the drawer. I'm sorry to say that. He does not want to use a little idea from Tolkien for his own story, no, he explicitely wants to base his work on Tolkien's. That's derivative work in the very meaning of the term! 2) Tolkien never created a map of Aman? Then it's even Original Reseach and for sure does not belong here and especially not into wikipedia. b) Yes, fan art is respected by many people and tolerated even by the rights holders (or at least they look the other way), but that does not mean it's legal, strictly speaking. I can't say if the prople you bought the maps from have permission to do so. If they shouldn't have, it's a very risky game. Yes, "'derivative works' cover so wide a ground that it is impossible to have any 'free use' image of any character / item / map / whatever described or shown in any copyrighted work of fiction". That's trivial, because if it were not that way, copyright would be entirely powerless. Please read the last paragraph in en:fan art and please see that we can only have pictures here which are legal in a strict sense. And also understand that we can't spoil the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia and use fan art instead of original, authorized material. Just in the same sense as you would not put your own picture in picasso style into en:Picasso (Uh, there are lots of copyvios in there I just see), just because his works are still copyrighted. You can surely use some original pictures under fair use in the Tolkien articles and be both legal AND preserve encyclopedic integrity. --Rtc 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In regards to the maps I made here, most were done before Commons:Derivative works became policy on commons. I had made the map showing the prominent locations because the names are widely known - you would not have to read the books to have heard of Mordor. With all the websites, games and movies relating to middle earth now you could have a basic idea of where things are in middle earth without ever having read the original work. However this probably is as you point out more of an argument for fair use. Also there is a map on wikipedia currently licenced as GNU - I suppose this should be changed to fair use --Astrokey44 05:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously this is a change in practices (hence the large number of images violating the principle), but it does seem that the law on derivative works applies to anything meant to represent copyrighted material/some aspect thereof. The 'Cliff and Norm' from 'Cheers' case is instructive... images of two similar guys sitting on bar stools were ruled to be intended to represent those characters - even though the people in the 'copy' merely looked like them and had different names. If even an imputed representation is subject to the original copyright then a deliberate one must be... and all the thousands of examples seemingly to the contrary are just copyright holders letting people get away with it. Though that does open the question of whether we shouldn't just try to get permission. If I understand correctly, if permission is given to represent the original copyrighted work then the new image is a 'derivative work' which the creator can use as they see fit (including GFDL and the like) without impacting the original copyright. 'Fair use' doesn't really cut it as a replacement because such images are barred from featured articles, portals, templates, et cetera... and often limited even in general articles. --CBDunkerson 13:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Why is Image:Metalbeast Hobbingen1.jpg a derivative work? Who has made the original painting? -Samulili 09:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been described, derivative work covers much more than just copying something. It also covers basing your work on creative elements of another copyrighted work. In this case it is the fictional town Hobbingen which the painting has been derived from. Basically all fan art tied to a certain work (in contrast to a genre) is a derivative work. "Fan art is usually a violation of the original creator's copyright" (en:Fan art). On the other hand, if you remove the context which claims the relation to the work (remove any reference, don't embed in a related article), and for example call it "Painting 'trees and flowers' by Jennifer Heinen", the copyright violation goes away. But there remains the original research. "Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for [...] self created artwork without educational purpose" --Rtc 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I don't believe for a second that derivative works cover this. Changing name could only help with, say, trademark issues and such. But if you give me the lines from the book which describe this picture I will change my mind. (And this has clear educational purpose). -Samulili 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They do. Just think about for a second what copyright was made for and what you could do if it were not that way. I can counter any argument with "I don't believe for a second". Fan art is copyright violation. Get this simple fact. In any case it would fall under the "Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for [...] self created artwork without educational purpose". --Rtc 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you often seem to want people to get your simple facts that are neither simple nor factual - or at least you've got nothing to prove your point. You want me to remind you about that source for lex specialis on trademarks and copyright? -Samulili 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me cite as an example from the US law as described here: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. What's unclear about it?--Wiggum 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Steschke 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A deleation for so much pictures can't be ok. Maby some pictures not ok, maby some are, so every pictures must be checked. An example for a picute that is ok, is the pictures that shows a castle.It's a little bit like a Harry Potter image, but only a little. And that is allwowed. In Germany an satire magazin of Asterix named Alkolix was produced. This magazin was at court of justice to check if its against copyright. But it is not! Because you can see its an Satire against asterix, but the figure looks different to asterix. But in this book an satire against TinTin must be deleted in the 2nd print, because this image looks complety the same as the original TinTin. So if an image ist look not to much like the Original, it ok to keep it. And Germany has the most restrigted copyright law in the world. --Hhp4 07:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • what you cite is under the fair use provision of parody (not satire). It is not about how much the picture looks the same, but it is about the objective intention behind the picture. If the picture's intention is supposed to be a harry potter castle, it is a derivative work and thus a copyright violation. All pictures listed here are fan art and are supposed from their very intention to represent the exact same character/whatever. They are inherently a derivative work and thus a copyright violation from their very purpose. It has all been discussed above. --Rtc 10:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Marcela 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates Commons:Derivative works.--84.175.229.71 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete derivative works. The comparison to parodies has a lack of rationale.--Wiggum 16:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Image:Tolkien The two trees.jpg has been listed above but not tagged for deletion, so I juat tagged it unless someone can prove otherwise. If anyone has any valid reason to keep any of them, please specify which one. Otherwise, all of them will have to deleted sometime soon.--Jusjih 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for ALL, this is no longer a coherent deletion request. While some of these images are valid deletion candidates this del req is frankly absurd in scope. Please see COM:AN#Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Middle earth map showing prominent locations.PNG.--Nilfanion 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Maire 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Ridiculous. Most works of art are inspired by something.[reply]
  • Keep tsca @ 23:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Such images are certainly encyclopedic. Maps of fictional worlds are not a well-explored area of copyright, so there won't be many laws or precedents here, and we need to use some common sense. I think in most cases level of borrowing is really tiny. Taw 23:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The making, copying, distribution and commercial exploitation of maps of ficitional places is, as a derivative work, clearly the exclusive privilege of the copyright holder. That is the very purpose of the derivative work provision in copyright. --Rtc 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing due to the procedural breach. All images, categories and galleries listed here should be kept for now and further discussion held on this topic elsewhere (see COM:AN).--Nilfanion 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Middle_earth_map_showing_prominent_locations.PNG&oldid=843751951"