File talk:TroupCountyGA1975Map.png
Specifically, criterion 1 at WP:NFCC mentions free content that could be created. Because we could draw our own map showing the state of the roads in 1975 and use that in place of a map under GDOT's copyright, we cannot use a clipping of their map. Imzadi 1979 → 16:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979: The question as edited in the replaceability is could it be accurately recreated as there is no data past that point of the roads overlaid on top of the water. Including but not limited to: Junctions and curves. --CBassett1 17:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Edit: Every source I have found completely removes any road data as it "enters" the water. --CBassett1 17:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- A map showing the area from that time period could still be created. Another person could draw their own map using this map as just one source. Maybe they'd use other sources, like a Rand McNally map. The accuracy with which it is drawn is not a reason that necessitates using the GDOT map. Even a reasonable fascimile that isn't as accurate as the GDOT map in question is still useful to a reason to provide the general concepts desired. Of course, this also assumes that others cannot draw an accurate map, which isn't the case. So in short, the map is still replaceable, thus failing criterion 1 of WP:NFCC. Imzadi 1979 → 17:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I can't agree with your stance on the matter. I would like to see others chime in to see if we get a net violation. Especially considering according to deletion criteria F7, a nominator should not be the one deleting the image since replaceability is disputed. --CBassett1 17:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Added article to 3rd Opinion list --CBassett1 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just a side comment, CBassett1, but since I'm not an administrator, I can't delete the image. That said, if and when the deletion tags expire, an administrator will have to come to the file page and render an opinion on the situation. It may also be considered inappropriate to alter the original date of the dispute to extend time in contravention of deletion policy related to copyrighted media. Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- A map showing the area from that time period could still be created. Another person could draw their own map using this map as just one source. Maybe they'd use other sources, like a Rand McNally map. The accuracy with which it is drawn is not a reason that necessitates using the GDOT map. Even a reasonable fascimile that isn't as accurate as the GDOT map in question is still useful to a reason to provide the general concepts desired. Of course, this also assumes that others cannot draw an accurate map, which isn't the case. So in short, the map is still replaceable, thus failing criterion 1 of WP:NFCC. Imzadi 1979 → 17:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 Response to third opinion request:
|
| I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on the image in question and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC) |
Editors: @Cbassett1: & @Imzadi1979: - Please post a link to the image page (i.e. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Georgia_population_map.png). Thanks. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Galendalia The full main file link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TroupCountyGA1975Map.png The page the image would be posted on (removed pending dispute) is Georgia State Route 109 --CBassett1 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
| Response to third opinion request:
|
| Since this has been put up on a nomination board, I cannot comment on it. It needs to be handled on the dispute noticeboard in which it is being handled. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 22:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 22:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC) |
- @Galendalia: there is no "nomination". The only noticeboard that linked to this file was the request for a third opinion, a request you removed in order to provide said opinion that you are now not providing. Will you provide the requested opinion, or will you restore the request to WP:3O? In any event, should the file come up for deletion per the tags, an administrator will still need to weigh in independently. Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
| Response to third opinion request:
|
| I apologize as I misread what was being said. Maps being used must meet certain criteria, which includes copyright, verifiability, and others. To this extent, I have looked at the linked PDF and it clearly states on the 2nd page, 'THIS MAP IS FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION TO THE CITIZENS OF Georgia and to visitors..." Furthermore, based on Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Public_domain, specifically the second sentence, section B "...the owner may have explicitly donated the work to the public..." Because the file itself in which the image was taken from, clearly states it is free, it would fall under this category. I hope this answers your question. I would highly recommend removing the deletion tags as they are scheduled starting today. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 04:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 04:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC) |
- @Galendalia: free distribution ≠ public domain though. It means that GDOT hasn't charged for the map. Such a statement isn't an explicit dedication into the public domain because it's not a waiver of copyright. Imzadi 1979 → 05:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979: I thought it was pretty clear that "free distribution = public domain" in this example, due to the fact of the statement on it. Therefore, it does meet those requests. If you are claiming that this map is copyrighted, please show me where it is copyrighted as I do not see it copyrighted anywhere. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 05:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Galendalia: free distribution does not, in itself, mean public domain. MDOT highway maps lack a price, have a variation on a free distribution notice and bear a copyright notice. It would appear that GDOT omitted such a copyright notice on this map, intentionally or otherwise, and that's what would make it public domain, not the quoted statement .
@CBassett1: we've been working off the assumption that this map was under copyright, as you stated when you uploaded it. It appears it is not, so the fair-use rationale, which would not be sufficient if this map were under copyright, is unneeded. I'll update the file information page to reflect this information. Imzadi 1979 → 05:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Galendalia: free distribution does not, in itself, mean public domain. MDOT highway maps lack a price, have a variation on a free distribution notice and bear a copyright notice. It would appear that GDOT omitted such a copyright notice on this map, intentionally or otherwise, and that's what would make it public domain, not the quoted statement .
- @Imzadi1979: I thought it was pretty clear that "free distribution = public domain" in this example, due to the fact of the statement on it. Therefore, it does meet those requests. If you are claiming that this map is copyrighted, please show me where it is copyrighted as I do not see it copyrighted anywhere. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 05:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979: Thank you. In actuality some of their maps do have a price, depending on how you obtain it. Since this particular map predated the copyright act, it would not have been known to copyright it, however, since the law allows previous works to automatically add them to the CR, it could have been copyrighted, but again as you pointed out, there is no noticed of it being copyrighted. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 05:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Galendalia: or @Imzadi1979: Thank you for the input. I learned something today. I understood that because of it being a state work it was copyrighted. I assume I'm still right, however in this case since there was no notice of copyright, pre 1977 works lost copyright? Is that right? --CBassett1 (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979: I respectfully ask you to remove the clause in the your previous statement "which would not be sufficient" as it was never actually determined by the community or an administrator who was actually right. I do not want to, nor will I submit myself to an unresolved or unwarranted badge of shame. --CBassett1 (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Cbassett1: - That is incorrect. The copyright act provides protection for any certain works prior to the date and back to a certain time (based on the work). In this specific instance, the map states it is free to the public and there is no copyright on file for it. This states that they left it in the public domain as not many agencies wanted to take the time and put out the money to get copyright (my POV). There is a list of exemptions, which is the foremost works of the US Government (except the USPS) are all public domain due to them being the federal government. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 06:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Galendalia: So on this particular work, the 1925-1977 exemption applies because of BOTH no copyright file and stating free to the public? And if it didn't include free to the public it would be protected? (Copyright law is confusing to me sometimes and I rather played it safe than sorry when initially posting this image)--CBassett1 (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @CBassett1: It is indeed very complicated! It would consider, more intricate detail, other than just the two listed. Because those two are the fastest to show why it would not meet the criteria, there are other ways to also verify which I do not want to get into because this conversation would last a couple of years to type everything out. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 07:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Galendalia: Since this is considered public domain of the US, wouldn't this now be eligible for moving to Wikimedia Commons? And how would one do that? --CBassett1 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @CBassett1: It is indeed very complicated! It would consider, more intricate detail, other than just the two listed. Because those two are the fastest to show why it would not meet the criteria, there are other ways to also verify which I do not want to get into because this conversation would last a couple of years to type everything out. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 07:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Galendalia: So on this particular work, the 1925-1977 exemption applies because of BOTH no copyright file and stating free to the public? And if it didn't include free to the public it would be protected? (Copyright law is confusing to me sometimes and I rather played it safe than sorry when initially posting this image)--CBassett1 (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Cbassett1: - That is incorrect. The copyright act provides protection for any certain works prior to the date and back to a certain time (based on the work). In this specific instance, the map states it is free to the public and there is no copyright on file for it. This states that they left it in the public domain as not many agencies wanted to take the time and put out the money to get copyright (my POV). There is a list of exemptions, which is the foremost works of the US Government (except the USPS) are all public domain due to them being the federal government. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 06:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi again CBassett1 on the far left when you are logged into Wikipedia, you should see a link to "Upload a file" when you click on that there will be a wizard. Just follow the instructions and get it posted. Make sure you use the correct rationale for the copyright. It would be wise to use the same wording from the EN Wikipedia. I first recommend though you read Wikipedia:Uploading images so you have a full understanding. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 07:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
