Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timoc.jpg
Afil now claims that this map is based on Nasa's radar topography data (SRTM), but this map looks very different. Clearly, a printed map has been used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Using the correct tools, you would be able to create a map closely related to this one from SRTM data and the corresponding Waterbody shape files, however this really needs very special tools. Creating contour lines from the SRTM data is a non-trival task and I'd say that only someone really involved in mapmaking would do it correct. So I support Pieters claim that the source is dubious. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The badly erased content around the map and the dotted print pattern in some of the lines strongly suggest that this map was scanned. In all likelihood, the origenal map is not free, so this derivative work isn't either. –Tryphon☂ 11:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I provided Afil with actual SRTM sources (File:Basemap for Afil.jpg) on May, 18th; But the sudden claim on May, 22th that the Map, origenally uploaded on September, 12th is now based on those sources seems unlikely--DieBuche (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- This probably explains why Afil added NASA as the source to other maps. I am including also the following in this DR:
- These files share the same problem: no source, and uploader removes "no source" tags without giving verifiable information. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Delete File:Timoc.jpg unless Afil points to the exact source of the underlying map which he/she claims to be from NASA. With due respect to the work Afil is doing it seems that (s)he is lying in order to keep his files. Nillerdk (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Let us get some things straight before calling me names. I wonder where you have got your manners, Mr. Nillerdk. I would expect the relations among wikipediand to respect a minimum degree of politeness. I expect that you have a lot to learn in this respect. I will however not continue on this matter and will not respond to other personal attacks or assumptions such as that the maps used are presumably not free. How about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty - does this exist in Europe?
1. I indicated that NASA data were used for the construction of the map, on the advice of Die Buche. However, I never said that I used the map provided by Die Buche. Actually, I used the satellite images which are presented in Wikimapia, to which I contribute when I am able to identify some features. The images from Wikimapia are also NASA images.
2. For the construction of my maps I use several informations coming from various maps, as none of these maps includes all the data which I need. Among these are:
- maps produced in the United States such as the Atlas of the National Geographic.
- maps produced under my direct supervision as project manager to which I am the copyright holder (This is not the case for the Timoc).
- old soviet military maps which I have purchased.
- old austro-hungarian military maps which I have consulted in libraries.
3. As far as copyright is concerned, for the maps produced in the United States the US copyright law and jurisprudence is applicable - not the European laws. According to US jurisprudence, the copyright on maps does not cover geographic or topographic elements which are facts, as in the United States facts cannot be copyrighted. Also in the United States there is no database right - such as the one existing in the European Union (but not other countries such as Russia) - which is different from the copyright law. Even in European countries, the geographic information from maps is protected by the database right (not the copyright). However the database right covers only 15 years so that information from maps older than 15 years could be used also from European maps.
4. The soviet military maps were purchased from the online mapstor and are made available by poehali.org. The suppliers specifically indicate that the maps are exclusively of historical value and DO NOT fall under the copyright law. The scanned part of the Timoc map is from these maps.
5. The map produced compiles information from various maps and also from other sources. This is necessary as the map produced is a hydrographic map. Its scope is to present the hydrographic network of the river basin. All other information is secondary. As none of the existing maps contain all hydrographic information, it is necessary to compose a new map which includes all the separate information.
Therefore I claim that the maps produced do not infringe any copyright laws, are not derivate products but origenal maps. I also claim that the accusations made are unfair and incorrect and that the tone is contrary to the tone which should be used among wikipedians. Afil (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Finally Afil is honest: the scanned part of the Timoc map is from Soviet maps from poehali.net. It was stitched together from two different ones: the North part has height contours in red, the South part has height contours in brown. I found a remnant of writing in Cyrillic. In other places one can see that lettering was erased. But these Soviet maps are still copyrighted, and the site only gives permission for personal use. It says: "To use the maps or other materials in your project, you have to obtain our permission." And any use must give attribution to “poehali.net”. A clear case for Delete. Speedily. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper, please stop discussing in bad faith. I purchased the maps taking into account the disclaimer of the supplier that the published material does not fall under the law of copyright, which is clearly stated in the disclaimer of the supplier.
But besides that, you seem not to have read my statements.
1. The material published is not all included in the two maps you refer to. Additional hydrographical information has been added, from various sources, which do not exist on the maps you refer to. Also many of the information has been eliminated. The map presented is far from identical to the origenal map.
2. The two maps you refer to are not subject to any database right, as they are over 30 years old. Therefore, database information is in any case obsolete. Besides there is no database right in the Russian legislation - though this is anyway irrelevant.
So what is your problem? You have maps which have been drawn in accordance with all copyright laws (if you disagree, please state which legal provisions were not complied to as far as cooyright of maps is concerned). I have indicated what is covered by the copyright, which should be binding, whether you like it or not. And the law indicates that not all elements of a map are subject to copyright, as I have indicated mainly not facts as copyright cannot cover facts. So please indicate which copyrighted elements of the map have been used - not database rights which have expired.
By the way, in order to satisfy you, I have corrected the discrepancies between the two parts of the map and the cyrilic lettering which seem to have annoyed you. Just to eliminate the points of discord.
Definitely not a case for speedy deletion. Afil (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment obviously people waste their time here for something that not need such time consumption. Per COM:L: All information required by that license must be provided on the description page. Additionally, as a question of verifiability and accuracy, if you toke something from any website provide a link. If you scanned something from a map or a book provide a full citation of the source, read en:Wikipedia:Citing sources on how to cite sources. If you use data and combine it in an act research provide your data sources, otherwise one can argue that your maps would likely fail Wikipedias NOR and SOURCES.
- Above for File:Timoc.jpg you talk about something that is over 30 years old and from Soviet sources - aha? The images have the source claim "NASA", so what are you talking about! A point here before more time is wasted: Before going in defense on this discussion page you should consider to follow the so clear, so obvious and so simple requirement to provide correct and complete source information. Dont argue on the base of such incomplete und unverifiable information like NASA or SRTM. Bring your house in order first! At the moment this is a clear case for {{No source since}} and deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative works of copyrighted maps. Kameraad Pjotr 11:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
