Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rano Kau volcano diagram.jpg
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.
Image is from a copyrighted publication http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/content/121/5-6/869 with © 2009 Geological Society of America. No evidence found to support a "PD-ineligible" licence is appropriate or valid. On the contrary, the image includes e.g. representations of rock distributions and angles of tilt that are likely to be the result of the authors' original scientific research. This mage should be deleted because the copyright licence on the source web page is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. GeoWriter (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep (from original uploader) I have been wondering about this a bit myself, and actually was hoping someone would nominate it for deletion so that I could have this discussion. Hear me out. My argument for retaining it goes like this: that the creator of the image claims an image is copyright protected and has marked it as such doesn't necessarily protect it: a photo taken by a US naval midshipman in the course of his duties and then uploaded as fully copyright protected on Flickr cannot be copyright protected because it was created by a member of the US military in the course of his duties and nothing by such persons can be copyright protected-- so the presence of one kind of claim of copyright on a an image by its creator I don't think necessarily means it cannot be uploaded to Commons under a different kind of copyright. Now, that the images represent the result of the authors' own original research is not in dispute, but the presentation of this "research" in the form of an illustration is a presentation of "facts", and facts, like ideas, are not tangible and therefore not copyrightable because they do not "come from" the person who is illustrating them: the patterns of rock types visible on the surface of a caldera are facts about the caldera, and in theory could be discovered by anyone looking at those exact same rocks. I think the real question, however, hinges on the presentation of those facts: are they somehow "artistic" or representative of the personality of the creator? As a line drawing specifically devoid of artistic personality but only showing "the facts", I claim it falls into the same category of images as most patent illustrations: complicated, perhaps, but achievable by anyone examining and illustrating the same device ("sweat of the brow" in producing such an illustration having no bearing in US copyright law). I believe there is no room for creative freedom in such a drawing: one cannot decide, for example, to make a volcano deliberately look taller "for poetic effect", because then it could not be used in a scientific journal. And if the author tried to insert it, the editor wouldn't publish it. So while I grant that the text of the article is entitled to copyright in that the words chosen by the authors and their style of presentation of the facts are the result of their personalities, I claim that the illustrations are not. KDS4444 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)- Delete It seems virtually all maps are covered. So be it. KDS4444 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your general point about facts not being copyrightable, and it's true that facts are reproduced in some types of diagrams under some specific circumstances, but I don't think that is the situation for is particular image. Ironically, and contrary to your belief, it is a fact that a few limited types of non-factual information are accepted by publishers of scientific books and journals, because much of science is about best interpretations of incomplete data, rather than facts. (I'm not saying that facts don't play a big part in science, of course they do).
- Publishers of textbooks and journals have devised a payment and attribution system to allow them to legally include already-copyrighted diagrams in their publications, without modification of the original, in effect copy and paste. You are claiming that you can copy and paste copyrighted diagrams into and across Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedias. I think that your approach is not allowed by copyright law, because the copyright holder has not agreed to publication on Wikimedia's terms.
- Do you think you have found an "absence of creativity in scientific diagrams" loophole in international copyright law that these multi-billion dollar publishing corporations have never thought of? They would love to be able to claim that diagrams (of other publishers, of course) are not copyrightable, because it would save them money on copyright fees. I suggest that they don't do this because copyright laws do not allow it.
- This image has been copyrighted by the publisher of the journal, and this will have been agreed by the authors of the image as a condition of publication in the journal. The copyright of this journal image is not subject to the law you mention, that mandates unchangeable public domain copyright (in the US) for work produced by employees of the US Federal Government, because that law applies only to employees of the US Federal Government.
- I think your argument is built on a false premise that, in your opinion, the image contains only facts and is devoid of personal interpretation or creativity. The image shows fewer facts than you seem to think. It's not an aerial photo, it's a drawing, so inaccuracies are unavoidable. The distribution of rock types shown in the map is not factual. It is a "best interpretation" of the limited evidence found from a set of discontinuous exposed outcrops of rocks, modified for display at the scales and resolutions allowed by the journal publisher. Ten geologists would produce ten different maps, even if the differences were only small, and each map would have its own copyright. (If these ten geologists were mapping the area as a student fieldwork exam and they all submitted the same identical map, it's quite likely that they would be punished for cheating, because it would be clear to the examiner that incomplete evidence is extremely unlikely to produce ten identical maps). The cross-sectional arrangement of underground subsurface layers is also an interpretation by the authors, because nobody knows the complete factual layout of the rock layers underground. Again the depiction will be a best interpretation subject to various personal biases as well as compromises and limitations linked to printing of the image. Even if the distribution of rocks was known in great detail, it would be too complex to show factually on a small diagram. Even if boreholes have been drilled, the representation of rock structure in the gaps between the boreholes cannot be factual because it is actually unknown. I think there is also additional evidence that these authors have exercised their creative freedom and interpretation in other ways e.g.their representation of the coastal outline of the island on the map is not factual, because the coast shows only the curves that the authors decided to include.
- I am convinced that this image has a copyright status that is not allowed on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons and therefore I suggest that it should be deleted. GeoWriter (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: While it is true that facts cannot be copyrighted and that a simple graph of a data set or sets such as those produced by MS Excel cannot have a copyright, an interpretive map such as this certainly has a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
