Commons:Deletion requests/File:Loveparade-zugang.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.

File:Loveparade-zugang.jpg

Above threshold of originality in Germany, because simple abstractions and selection (only some relevant parts of some streets) are sufficient for that. --rtc (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete I agree that this is too much to qualify for PD-ineligible. TheDJ (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• keep URV-Paranoika. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• keep nothing is sufficient for originality. --Micha (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Keep Insufficient schöpfungshöhe. -- H005 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Keep insufficient Schöpfungshöhe -- Meister 13:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Delete  On hold This picture was copied from http://www.duisburg.de – on the other hand this graphic "consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." (i.e. {{PD-ineligible}} ...) axp_de^Hello! 11:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  P.S.: It is original authorship to draw a map ... at least that's what I feel about my map ;-) axp_de^Hello! 09:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• delete there are endless alternatives how to show that content in a map, depending on the amount and kind of abstraction and the illustration. So of course there is original authorship and schöpfungshöhe. --Don-kun (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Keep pure facts without room for creativity. At least if there was room for creativity it wasn't used at all. --Niabot (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  The same with nearly every photo: Pure facts, no creativity. And the same with the textes in wikipedia: pure facts. You see: the content doesn't effect on the copyright status. And in the toppic of the map alone lies a galaxy of room for creativity. --Don-kun (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  You can't compare maps with photos, since they are treated differently by law (whatever the suspicious reason may be). So far this map goes, it fails in my opinion the needed creativity. --Niabot (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Fully agree with Niabot, the UrhG has explicit rules for photos having no sufficient schöpfungshöhe ("Lichtbilder", as opposed to "Lichtbildwerke"), but not for maps. -- H005 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  There are judgements who prove that for maps there is also a very low barrier for schöpfungshöhe. --Don-kun (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• delete existing originality. NNW (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• All that the author has done is rendering the relevant objects: event area, access routes, emergency routes, train station. Anyone who had the task to draw a map for the same purpose would have come up with more or less the same result. -- H005 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  That's irrelevant. The map is above threshold of originality, which is low for maps. Please read de:Kleine Münze. Even minimum creativity grants you a copyright and the abstraction is creative. You are confusing maps and design works. Maps are not design works. There are different threshold of originality criteria for design works because they benefit from design patent law already. That's not the case for maps. And BTW it should be easy to make a new, better and free map. Why do you and the others above discuss instead of working on such a better map? --rtc (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Why you don't create a new map? Would be a much easier discussion... --Niabot (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  file:Übersichtskarte Loveparade Duisburg 2010.jpg. But with an incorrect licence, it should contain this template. NNW (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  But this map was not "created from OpenStreetMap project data, collected by the community." – I used a plain street map by OSM, all additions were made by myself! It's just questionable whether I'm allowed to add "nc" to the CC license or not ... axp_de^Hello! 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  P.S.: License fixed, now CC-BY-SA 2.0 as ordered! axp_de^Hello! 09:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  Because I am too incompetent on the matter of drawing maps. --rtc (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  No, there can be very different results. And the author did not just render objects, the objects are changed and simplified. The roads for example do not correspond to the real characteristics, they are simplified and some characteristics are highlighted. --Don-kun (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There is an open map request on the English Wikipedia for an independent and improved map btw. TheDJ (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Delete Please be refered to BGH, decision from 28 May 1998 (I ZR 81/96). I'm quoting from the guiding principle:

Auch eine Karte, die als einzelnes Kartenblatt aufgrund einer vorbekannten gestalterischen Konzeption erstellt ist, kann urheberrechtlich schutzfähig sein, wenn bei ihrer Erarbeitung gleichwohl ein genügend großer Spielraum für individuelle formgebende kartographische Leistungen bestanden hat. Dem in einem solchen Fall geringeren Grad der Eigentümlichkeit des Werkes entspricht ein engerer Schutzumfang. Der Eigentümlichkeitsgrad und damit der Schutzumfang kann jedoch bei einem Kartenwerk (z. B. bei thematischen Karten) höher sein, wenn es bereits nach seiner gestalterischen Konzeption von einer individuellen Darstellungsweise geprägt ist, die es zu einer in sich geschlossenen eigenschöpferischen Darstellung des betreffenden Gebiets macht.

In summary, maps are copyrighted if there was some minimal amount of freedom of expression. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't interprete it like this. There must be more than "minimal amount of freedom of expression". There must be "individuelle formgebende kartographische Leistungen". That means there must be cartographic work on it. That is not only to mark a place of an event or areal or the own house or something like that. That's not "cartographic work", this is only marking. It means that there must be things like contour lines, high mountain ranges, train tracks or such things, which are individual cartographic information and makes a map unique. --Micha (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well nearly everything is cartographic in case of a map. The text of this decision refers later on to Freiraum für eine individuelle Gestaltungsweise (i.e. freedom of individual expression):

Der Freiraum für eine individuelle Gestaltungsweise zur Erreichung eines Kartenbildes, das möglichst zweckentsprechend, verständlich und übersichtlich, dazu klar und harmonisch ist, kann bei Karten entsprechend der Aufgabenstellung sehr unterschiedlich sein - sehr eng begrenzt etwa bei Katasterkarten, etwas größer dagegen bei topographischen Karten und regelmäßig noch größer bei thematischen Karten (vgl. Pape, Kartographische Nachrichten 1979, 228 ff.; Twaroch, Medien und Recht 1992, 183, 185 ff.).

This explains that this freedom of expression is greater in case of topical maps (in contrast to ordnance survey maps, for example). And this map is a topical map with a selective display of cartographic elements, use of symbols, choice of colors etc. to make it more readable. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not almoust everything is cartographic. If you take measurements on the land for contour lines then it is crystal clear that the maps must be copyright protected even so the contour lines are only black lines on the map. But simply mark a house with color on an existing map (open street map for example) is not a cartographic action. --Micha (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why discuss a lot about this (imho) bad map. Somebody could made an own (and even better) map on the base of the open street map and we could skip this discussion. ... --Micha (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is no point in continuing this endlessly — this map shall be replaced. But, allow me to point out that colors are an essential cartographic aspect of maps. See, for example, Judith A. Tyner: Principles of Map Design, chapter Color in Cartographic Design which quotes Mark Twain: “It's [color] got everything to do with it. Illinois is green, Indiana is pink. You show me any pink down there, if you can. No, sir; it's green.” --AFBorchert (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand you can just use any programm and randomize the colors. This will give nearly the same results, at least in the aspect that the colors don't compare to the actual color of the landscape. Same applies to political parties. The German CDU is labeled to be "die Schwarzen" (the blacks), but that has also nothing to do with the color or something else of the people inside this party. An color theme alone isn't worthy to be protected. --Niabot (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not just a question of colours. If you compare file:Loveparade-zugang.jpg with file:Übersichtskarte Loveparade Duisburg 2010.jpg you can see that the southern part of file:Loveparade-zugang.jpg is strongly compressed and contorted. Especially the shape of the railway area looks completely different. This doesn't show "pure facts" as you claimed above, it's a work on its own.

Btw a new map won't give the answer if this file has to be deleted or not. Copyvio is copyvio, it doesn't matter if there is an alternative map or not. NNW (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is a better map, nobody uses this map anymore and it could be deleted anyway either it is copyvio or not. If I find time on the weekend I will make a map. --Micha (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep Aufgrund Schöpfunghöhe. HBR (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Deleted, copyright violation: passes the threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)