Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA).PNG

This map is unnecessarily covert in its sources. It is likely to be a derived work of a map published elsewhere. This must either be expressed in a way that can be correctly verified or it should be deleted per precautionary principle. The map is being used as the basis of nationalist racial theories, as Category:Human Y-DNA haplogroups in Poland demonstrates. Fæ (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This work is original and of my authorship, inspired by previous works of other users. The colorimetric gradient and the 2-10-30-60% scale is of my invention because it allows to easily visualize the concentration of haplogroups in each region, more manageable to work because lower percentage ranges will only produce a more tiring work. I used many references that I will add soon. On the other hand, it cannot be affirmed that "probably" is a work derived from a map published elsewhere, without evidence, and request deletion, because this would be an injustice with users who upload their images with legitimate intentions.--Maulucioni (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the map is a fantasy, then it misrepresents itself as "science" and as fake news with negative educational value fails to meet scope.

If the map is a derived work (as other maps created for this same purpose are being discovered to be) then it is a copyvio.

Neither of these deletion options is an "injustice". --Fæ (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Genetic testing is a legitimate science that is used to determine human migration patterns and genealogy, it has nothing to do with fake news. Data collected from genetic tests cannot be copyrighted because it is not an expression. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • Contributions/Gone_Postal) 12:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map is likely to be copied from an original all rights reserved map. There is no indication anywhere than the map was created from pure data. Without sources this cannot be a keep. --Fæ (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remember that the origin of the data was already listed. See in source.--Maulucioni (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What we see is a PNG file with no explanation of what source data was used to create it. What we do see is elliptical references to vague sources, none of which appears to contain actual data that could possibly recreate this map.

The "source" states {{own}}. Map based on [[w:en:Y-chromosome_haplogroups_by_populations|Y-chromosome haplogroups by populations]] tables, [[w:en:Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)|Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)]] article, [http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf Map of Y Haplogroups], [http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml Distribution of Y-DNA page], Cruciani 2010, Abu-Amero 2009, Chiaroni 2009, Balaresque 2009, Hassan 2008, Tambets 2004, Rosser 2000, etc. which in no way is a statement that allows us to verify the license given. Certainly, the CC-BY-SA release appears misleading and gives no indication of precisely who holds the copyright to what and requires reusers to give attribution. --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in such cases is actually quite clear, it belongs to the person who has taken the data and by using creative process turned it into a map. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and think about a similar, but different, example. Here we have number sequences, and below them a diagram of those sequences. Data itself has no copyright, writing it in textual form has no copyright, plotting it on a liniar graph has no copyright, but plotting it on a blue line, using specific arrow style with specific font and specific colour has some minimal copyright. Thus {{own work}} is a statement sufficient for copyright. Now, if your argument is that the outline of the continents was copied from another file, that is a completely different argument which has nothing to do with data (which is overlayed by several users starting in 2012), then we can discuss this. Is this your argument? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • Contributions/Gone_Postal) 12:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is that this remains a failure against precautionary principle unless the claim that this is a map created purely from a data set, rather than derived from any of the published zone maps, can be demonstrated. To verify the licence in this case, the source data must be specified and the map must be reproducible from that data set. This is fundamental to the claim that copyright cannot apply as only selected data was used, even though some of the stated source publications are all rights reserved.

The underlying map is a separate issue, my presumption was that it is likely to be copyright free, but you are correct that in addition it needs a source that can be verified. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep No proof whatsoever that any copyright was violated. Bad faith DR which no amount of wikilawyering can validate. AshFriday (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete The author says himself that the work is original research. It is not based on any authoritative sources. The picture should be deleted for spreading misinformation and inciting racist, chauvinistic sentiment.The Chinese Aryan (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no rule against original research. There is nothing racist about haplogroups. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • Contributions/Gone_Postal) 05:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment A user that joined just yesterday has linked File:IE countries.svg here via a {{delete}}. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • Contributions/Gone_Postal) 05:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as in use. --Yann (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Careful reading of the previous DR has not addressed the fundamental issue for this map, that there is no source for the work it was derived from. Raising again as the basic question of copyright for this derived work has failed to be addressed in any meaningful way.

Commons has plenty of public domain maps, were this map derived from a public domain map, there would be no issue here, it just needs to be referenced. This DR can be closed if someone provides such a source and we can compare the images to verify there is no copyright problem.

The last DR was closed on the basis that the file is in use, copyright was not addressed. The requirements of COM:L and COM:PRP are perfectly clear and inescapable. When there is doubt, we must be able to verify the copyright status of the original work when derived works are created. None of the sources quoted includes the map that underpins this image, neither does the uploader make any claim that this was how the map was created. It would be magical thinking to believe that the uploader imagined this map and it was not derived from anything at all apart from their creative imagination.

At no time has the uploader explained their source, or if a mapping tool was used that can be verified. Fæ (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I will not reierate my opinion on the copyright of a global map. Apparently this is not concensus of admins on this project and this is unlikely to be resolved or change until we get some sort of opinion from Legal or potentially a court case. However, I still believe that categorising deletion requests of haplo-maps as anything to do with "racial theories" is libelous to the extreme. Races do no even exist when we talk about contemporary genetics, races are socio-political constructs and there are no theories about them when we talk about haplogroups. There is an archaic useage of the word race that means species or a genetic subgroup, but I doubt that in a 21st century anybody would classify a haplogroup as a "race" unless the intention was to smear somebody's reputation. We are an educational portal, and I would really hate to see somebody getting confused between genetic research and racial divisions that are today universaly rejected as pseudoscience. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • [[Special:Contributions/Gone_Postal|]) 16:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Haplogroup maps are not about race. They are related to the historic and prehistoric origin of the human being. Maps tell us, for example, the migrations of populations across different continents for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Scientific references are abundant and in them many authors make their own maps. But it seems that there is a desire to allow the existence of encyclopedic articles but it is wanted to destroy any type of graphic representation of the same subject, looking for any excuse for it. My opinion is that the attempt at censorship is obvious. The maps are not perfect, they are approximations, and need to be updated according to the most recent bibliography. I also find it unacceptable to doubt the users' own work and my qualification as a map artist, a hobby that I have developed all my life, since my childhood 50 years ago. I still have my school maps for proof.--Maulucioni (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody has questioned your ability to draw maps.

However nobody draws an accurate map of the world by imagining what the world might look like. That would be bizarre and is not a credible scenario.

You traced an existing map. All that has been asked of you, over and over again, is to state what your source was so that anyone can verify it. You have evaded the question many times, and could have resolved these discussions without ever getting to the stage of needing a deletion request which attempts to flush out the basic copyright question that by policy has to be answered, what publication was this derived from? --Fæ (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maulucioni: , @Fæ: I think I have a solution which will not only resolve all of the issues with the map deletion requests, but also improve Commons in the process. If Maulucioni has a video camera and a little bit of time, can they please record them drawing a map of some continent by hand without tracing an already existing map. Then upload that video here under a free licence, this would actually be a great video to have, as it would be the best possible illustration for 'map making'. The reason why I am asking for a continent and not for a country is that some ex-colonial countries have many straight borders, and that is not creative in any case. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • Contributions/Gone_Postal) 06:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would not be a solution to the issue of being a copyright violation under derivative works. The solution is to be honest about the source of this map, rather than evading this very basic question of copyright. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the user draws the map, then that is {{own}} by the very definition. If drawing something without copying another work is not own work, then nothing is own work. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • Contributions/Gone_Postal) 09:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This map was copied. It is not a work of art displaying a fictional world seen in a dream.

If you draw a recognizable cartoon of Mickey Mouse, it's a copyvio. The same rules apply to all derived works which happen to be called amateur drawings and claimed as own work.

The solution here is to declare the source, rather than endlessly evading the question. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is patently false. If I draw a tree, I am not committing a copyright infringement on a tree. If I draw a sea shore, I am not comitting a copyright infringement on a sea shore. If I draw France, I am not committing copyright infringement on France. There is no copyright on facts. In fact you have it completely the other way around, if you draw a world that you have seen in your dream, that is the only time when that world has copyright infringement. Mickey Mouse has copyright only because there is no Mickey Mouse in the real world. I can make a fictional story with Donald Trump, I can make a fictional story with you in it, and that is not copyright infringement. Since this nomination clearly has no basis in copyright law, I vote to  close it. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • Contributions/Gone_Postal) 10:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you are absolutely correct. If you draw a tree, then nobody cares about copyright. However paintings of trees are copyrighted works.

You cannot draw this map of the world, by yourself looking at the world from space.

You would draw this map of the world by tracing a map of the world made by someone else.

Maps are not all public domain. Most maps are all rights reserved or made available for non-commercial use. COM:L and COM:PRP are very clear. --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that in 21st century there are no photographs of earth from space? Are you really making that argument? And finally yes, if you trace another map, then maybe you are committing copyvio. Then you should jump at the opportunity to see how the map is drawn; but you say "This would not be a solution to the issue of being a copyright violation under derivative works", which is clearly not true, because that is the solution since then COM:DW does not apply as that is not a derivative work. See Commons:Derivative_works#What_is_a_derivative_work?. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • Contributions/Gone_Postal) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the big but, but the uploader who is writing on this page, has not said how exactly they created this map. If they used Google Earth, then it's a copyright violation.

The solution here is to declare the source, rather than endlessly evading the question. --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The maps I have made are not copies of Google earth, they are only inspired by its images. Google earth is based on US government institutions, such as NOAA and US Navy, which generate free images. Google earth images are very accurate, not only because they are based on satellite photos, but because they are represented three-dimensionally, in the sphere that is the Earth. My maps, like other maps, are two-dimensional, therefore they are unable to accurately represent reality. For example, the Pacific Ocean is very compressed, because in reality this ocean occupies almost half of the planet. My maps are far from the accuracy of Google earth. On a genetic map of native populations, it is not necessary to draw large oceans. For me it would have been very easy to copy another old image of commons, instead I preferred to make my own map to center it on the Pacific and placing the Americas on the right..--Maulucioni (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have realised that I have committed a fallacy fallacy when I have voted to close this DR. It is clear that it is not following correct logic, however, because the argument against something is false does not mean that the original is true. I would still appreciate it if we would have some evidence that the maps are created by a person without tracing some map, which can potentially have some creative elements in it (as I have said elsewhere map makers purposefully add false elements into their maps to get copyright protection. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • Contributions/Gone_Postal ListFiles/Gone_Postal) 12:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As a confirmed derived work of Google Earth, which is not freely licensed (explicitly "non-commercial use"), the underpinning map is a known copyright violation even if the correct legally required attribution is added.

As a reminder to readers; public domain and suitably freely licensed maps of the planet are available, such as Open Street Map. Maps of the planet are replaceable, and where doubt on sources exists should be removed. --Fæ (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: the user says that Google Earth wasn't used, it's own creation (and it is possible based on the user's contributions). If we do stick to the paradox proposed in the nomination, then no map can exist here at all: "if it is created by the uploader, it is an original research and has no educational value; if it is taken from somewhere, it is copyright". No valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]