The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: not deleted

Blank source site - Impossible to verify GFDL release Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retag as ((PD-US-patent)) with [1] as the source (it doesn't have the language that states any part is copyrighted). --NE2 17:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep 100dpi version, move to Commons. Both of the original parties in the debate (Centpacrr and NE2) have agreed that the originally-uploaded version is the best compromise, and it has been placed on Commons as appropriate. Based on Centpacrr's description of the process, there is likely enough creativity involved for a new copyright. In light of this, Sfan00's original deletion rational is not an issue, since the copyright holder can license his/her works in whatever way they choose. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source listed apparently has clauses incompatible with 'free' licensing Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also other uploads from the user concerned may be affected. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keepsee below the best-quality version, which was published in the U.S. in 1887, unless proof can be shown that the restoration passes the threshold of originality. --NE2 17:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim any ownership of the copyright of the original map which was produced in 1887 by the Government and is therefore in the public domain. I do own the copyright to the image I contributed to Wikipedia, however, which is a lower resolution version of a digital restoration that I created from two damaged copies of the large (20.5 x 18.5) original map from my own collections which I spent a great many hours to scan, reconstruct, digitally composite, repair tears, remove creases and foxing, color correct, and make literally hundreds of other "pixel by pixel" adjustments and repairs to produce the final copyrighted high resolution digitally restored image which has been on my family's private railroad history website for seven years. I decided yesterday to contribute and license a lower resolution (100dpi) version of my restoration to Wikipedia which is the version I uploaded. The copyrighted high resolution restoration that was substituted for it is a different file which was downloaded by User:NE2 from my family's private website and then uploaded by him to Wikipedia, both of which actions are violations of our site's posted user agreement. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Can you please explain what creative modifications you made that pass the threshold of originality? You are definitely commended for taking the time to restore it, but if it is true to the original, the amount of time and work doesn't affect copyright status. --NE2 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The digital image restoration and enhancement noted above that I did to create the final image file of this map constitutes originality consisting of substantial variation and adaptation that was not an inevitable result of the original digital medium of reproduction. This restoration goes far beyond my making an accurate, faithful, slavish, or mechanical reproduction of the two original degraded historic copies of the map in my collections with absolute fidelity, but to the contrary employed creative artistry consisting of, but is not limited to, manual artistic personal imprint to create a new improved version which was recast, transformed, adapted, and is distinguishable from the several digitally scanned images from which it was derived. This restoration and enhancement altered virtually every one of the millions of numbers that represent the final digital image file and required individual conception, judgment, numerous creative decisions, and precise execution. (See the page Digitally Restored Panoramic Composited View of The Golden Gate, Fort Point, and San Francisco Bay as seen from "Land's End" near Sutro Heights, c. 1895. for another sample of the results I have achieved with this process.)

Professional digital image restoration requires experience, originality, personal influence, and contributions consisting of, but is not limited to, interpreting the original digital image and deciding on numerous expressive modifications to multiple visual elements involving a large numbers of creative judgments requiring both technical and artistic skill. These are all the product of intellectual invention and subjectively deciding the artistic merit of how to independently alter the image to create additional added portions of the digital visual image that were missing or obscured in the scanned image, correcting for color, removing blemishes (foxing, creases, etc), and altering or transforming the aesthetic appearance of the image to make it clearer, sharper, more perfect, and more visually pleasing. Each and every one of these manipulations to the digital file constitute added substance thus making the final image, as so modified, a new and unique work and thus copyrightable. As this image is a digital restoration employing both creative manipulation and originality, as opposed to a simple "slavish reproduction," Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (36 F. Supp. 2d 191, S.D.N.Y. 1999) would not seem to apply as a basis to preclude copyrightability of the file.

When I decided to upload and license my copyrighted restoration of this map to Wikipedia I created a lower resolution (100dpi) version of the original file which has been online on my family's privately owned and operated railroad history website for seven years. The high resolution version which you then uploaded in its place is a different file which I did not chose to upload and license to Wikipedia. In addition you downloaded this larger version of the image from our railroad history website and then uploaded it to a Wikipedia server without permission, both of which actions are violations of our site's posted user agreement to which you had agreed by accessing the site. (Centpacrr (talk)(Centpacrr (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

DELETE: As User:NE2 again substituted the pirated higher resolution copyrighted version of my restoration of this map for a fourth time in violation of the user agreement of the site from which it was improperly downloaded (which I have again reverted to the freely licensed version), with regret it is now my preference that the digital restoration of this map that I contributed be deleted altogether. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Saying something doesn't make it true. Either this is a copy of the original, in which case it's public domain, or you added enough creative content of your own, in which case it's not the original and shouldn't be claimed as the original. --NE2 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, the file is not a slavish copy of the original, but is a digital restoration of the map composited and enhanced from two damaged partial originals. Irrespective of that, however, the file you substituted for it is a another copyrighted higher resolution version of that digital restoration which was pirated from a privately owned and operated website in violation of site's posted user agreement. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm talking about the true original, not the deteriorated copies that currently exist. Was the restoration supposed to match the original, or did you add things that weren't on it? --NE2 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The types of the many hundreds of original actions that it took me to create and enhance the digital composite illustration file of the map are described in detail immediately above. However to avoid further controversy, I have requested that my enhanced restoration of the map image be deleted from Wikipedia altogether, and as a result of this experience I will regretfully probably withhold making available through Wikipedia a good many other digital restorations of historic railroad maps and other documents that I have created over the years which I had been planning to contribute. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This is similar to an issue previously addressed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/National Portrait Gallery images (first set). "...WMF has made it clear that in the absence of even a strong legal complaint, we don't think it's a good idea to dignify such claims of copyright on public domain works." See Bridgeman vs. Corel. "[T]he law is becoming increasingly clear: one possesses no copyright interest in reproductions ... when these reproductions do nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image" (Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Meshwerks vs. Toyota). This is an important issue for Wikipedia, because there are ongoing attempts to re-copyright old material, and it's important to understand that most have no legal force. --John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A "digital restoration", while time-intensive and the result of exacting work, primarily restores unfaithful copies of an original to faithfulness, which does not add anything to the original. Any additional material is not in the nature of being copyrightable, but if it were, and the original uploader was the owner of the rights, by uploading it to WP, the rights have been licensed under GFDL and are no longer under the original uploader's control, so either way, there is no reason to delete. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the second part of your argument doesn't quite apply, since he only actively released the lower-quality restoration. --NE2 18:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrespective of that issue, the higher resolution version of my restoration uploaded and substituted by another user for the file I originally contributed was pirated from a privately owned and operated website in violation of its posted user agreement to which he had agreed by accessing the site, and that pirated version still resides on a Wikipedia server from which it is remains accessible. To cure that issue, I have requested that all versions of the enhanced restoration that I created be deleted from Wikipedia's servers. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • Since a copy of a PD document is not seperately copyrightable, the resolution is irrelevant. Resolution only comes into effect when making an argument for the fair use of an image that's copyrighted, when the argument is that the lower resolution interferes less with the rights of the copyright holder since additional copies will be of inferior quality to the original. For a PD document, absent any added original material which is copyrightable, a copy is a copy is a copy is a copy, regardless of whether it's high or low resolution -- they're all PD, and you control rights to none of them. Sorry, but those are the cold hard facts. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is another straw man as the issue here is the origin of the two different files. The higher resolution file was pirated from a private website in violation of that site's posted user agreement to which the individual who pirated it had agreed to abide by accessing the site. It is also not a "slavish reproduction" of the original map which is what Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (36 F. Supp. 2d 191, covers, but is instead a composited digital restoration the creation of which employed creative artistry consisting of, but is not limited to, manual artistic personal imprint to create a new improved version which was recast, transformed, adapted, and is distinguishable from both the original map and the several digitally scanned images from which the restoration was derived. My restoration and enhancement altered virtually every one of the millions of numbers that represent the final digital image files from which it was derived and required individual conception, judgment, numerous creative decisions, and precise execution which makes the final restoration an original copyrightable work based on an earlier work in the public domain. I gladly and voluntarily released the copyright under GDFL of the original file of the lower resolution version which I uploaded to Wikipedia. I did not release, however, any rights the higher resolution file which I did not upload to Wikipedia but instead resides on the site to which I did license this original work seven years ago. This is the completely different file that was subsequently illegally pirated and uploaded by another individual to the Wikipedia page I had created earlier for the freely released version for which it was then improperly substituted. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
          • Is doesn't matter how many numbers you changed or decisions you had to make, it is about passing the threshold of originality. Which you did not.--BirgitteSB 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On a related note, the Library of Congress has a large collection of railroad maps from 1828 to 1900.[2]. There are 623 maps, scanned at very high resolutions, and available for download with no restrictions. --John Nagle (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If User:Centpacrrs reasoning were true, I could restore an Old Masters work and slap my own copyright on it. Just because you cleaned it up doesn't give you copyrights to it, especially if you were trying to duplicate the exact look of the original. It would be better to not keep hi res versions of files you don't wish to disseminate on a website where they can be accessed by anyone. You can still sell the hi-res versions if you do this, you just can't copyright them. I think anyway. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While I am sure we all appreciate the time and effort Centpacrr put into restoring this image (I know I do), it was in the public domain and remains so unless his restoration had created sufficient originality, but that is obviously not the case. Even if he was hanging from the chandelier while using PhotoShop for 36-hours no new copyrightable image has been created. At best it could possibly be described as a derivative work but even then the public domain copyright stands. Sorry Centpacrr. ww2censor (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid many here are still all missing the point and instead following a straw man argument. What I am discussing are twodifferent files one of which I uploaded and released, the other of which I did not. The former is the so called lower(100dpi) resolution file which produces an image that is not a mere "slavish reproduction" covered by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (36 F. Supp. 2d 191), but an original final work created by compositing elements from two damaged partial originals to which portions missing from both were then recreated and added, and which is clearly distinguishable from the originals from which it was derived. Bridgeman v Corel, by the way, relates to unaltered photographs (i.e. "slavish reproductions"), not composited digital restoration files which are quite different.

• I did not either upload or release any rights to the higher resolution file which I licensed seven years ago to a copyrighted site from which it was pirated in violation of that site's clearly posted user agreement to which the individual who did so had agreed to abide by the act of accessing the site. Also you might note that what is copyrighted here is not the "image" but the digital "file" I uploaded. No image exists until the code contained ther file is read, processed, and interpreted by software residing in the computer to which it is downloaded and then the results are "painted" as a visible image on a CRT or LCD display. This is a difference that Wikipedia clearly now seems to acknowledge with its change to calling the pages "File:" as opposed to the old designation "Image:" which was used until recently. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• • No offense, but you're totally wrong with respect to derivative works of public domain works. --NE2 21:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepMove to Commons The claim that NE2 has violated the Terms of Service of some website is an issue of contract law between NE2 and the webhost which does not involve Wikipedia and further discussion of this aspect should be very aware of the Wikipedia policy against legal threats. There is no valid copyright law concern on this image. Wikipedia was not a party to the TOS contract and the restrictions of that contract do not in any way remain attached to the image, rather they remain attached to only the parties of the contract. Restricting access to public domain material is a common method used to attempt to assert control over IP that the owner of a particular specimen does not own. When a specimen is rare enough and the restrictions are both severe and easily enforced, the method has some success. But the fact sometimes people may succeed in controlling IP this way does not mean they actually own the IP. And whenever the genie is finally released from the bottle, it is out for good. Referring to this image as "pirated" is completely inaccurate as the IP here is in the public domain, and pirating refers to stealing IP. Physically owning the original version of the restored digital image (if you can physically own a digital image :P) does mean one owns the IP of that image.--BirgitteSB 21:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't exactly a "Keep" because if held to be PD it should be put on Commons. Frankly this discussion should probably move there because if Commons decide to accept it as PD it doesn't much matter what we decide here and if they happen disagree that it is PD then the discussion here may be better informed by what is said by those who more frequently handle PD images.--BirgitteSB 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. BirgitteSB's grasp of law is tenuous at best. Wikipedia should avoid the appearance of impropriety which goes with the recieving of stolen goods. Photo-restorations often fall under new Copyright, see no reason why this would not, and we are not lawyers. We have a free and clear image sufficient for our purposes, and an image slightly fancier which has the problem that it's stolen. Whether or not you think that it wouldn't be 'receiving stolen goods', you are not a lawyer. It is in Wikipedia's long-term interest to NOT alienate those who provide us with images they are willing to share by stealing from them images they are NOT willing to share. For some reason, there's a part of this project obsessed with some 'The internet should be so free that theft is allowed' mindset, and are rabid about defending it. Unfortunately, that's not sensible, nor is it premised in any sort of law. We should model the best we can be here, in all things, including NOT using stolen goods, which we would be doing. ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you find any of the substance of my opinion inacurate, please comment on what you disagree with rather than on my personal ability to understand the law. Frankly I am confident that my opinion on this topic is rather well-informed--BirgitteSB 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The image is 3,090×2,772, and the uploader doesn't want it released, and has asserted copyright for something other than slavish copying. The bar for originality to support a copyright is very low. The uploader seems satisfied releasing a 2,060×1,848 image. Is it really worth the copyright risk, however low some may think it is, for the marginal benefit of a slightly higher resolution image? And upsetting and potentially driving away the uploader who did all the work? Stick with the 2,060×1,848 image. Gimmetrow 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to both ThuranX and Gimmetrow who are the first two editors that have actually correctly understood the issues I have raised here. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I believe they are the only 2 to agree with you, whether or not they are correct is up to interpretation. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I hadn't actually made a vote in comments above.) Public-domain image, with some restoration. Restoration does not create a new copyright. (Photographic restoration is so routine now that even Tesco does it.[3].) --John Nagle (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is neither a "routine" restoration nor a "slavish reproduction" of a public domain document but a composited reconstruction made from damaged partial originals which also required the recreation of missing elements. This is also something which I do professionally examples of which you can see here andhere.(Centpacrr (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Does it look like the original after you do this? I don't mean the original damaged document, I mean what the original document would have looked like at the time of it's creation. See my comment above about restoring an old master painting. It doesn't matter if you have to composite sources or make up some detail, if your are reconstructing someone elses work with this degree of fidelity to the original, it's still their copyright. And since this document is PD, it's still PD.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controlling case, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (36 F. Supp. 2d 191), has to do with photographic "slavish reproduction" and not the complex digital restoration, compositing, and recreation of severely damaged partial originals. The final image looks very little like the pieces I started with. Are you implying that if I had done a "bad" job at this it would be copyrightable, but a high quality restoration and reconstruction would not be because it looks too much like an original did in 1887? Really? (Centpacrr (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., I googled what you provided, and we happen to have an article on it. And it does not seem to back up your side of the issue. Actually, this is in the article "[T]he law is becoming increasingly clear: one possesses no copyright interest in reproductions ... when these reproductions do nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image". You might actually have a better chance if you didn't do such good work. Sorry. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Out dent)And if you go here, [4] which has the ruling for this case, it has this: 36) Thus, the authors implicitly recognize that a change of medium alone is not sufficient to render the product original and copyrightable. Rather, a copy in a new medium is copyrightable only where, as often but not always is the case, the copier makes some identifiable original contribution. In the words of the Privy Council in Interlogo AG, "there must . . . be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work." (52) Indeed, plaintiff's expert effectively concedes the same point, noting that copyright "may" subsist in a photograph of a work of art because "change of medium is likely to amount to a material alteration from the original work, unless the change of medium is so insignificant as not to confer originality . . ." (n53)

And since you are trying to make the work look like as exact a reproduction of the original work as possible, you are leaving no room for originality. It make take you considerable skill and talent to do this, but it is still a derivative work of the original, copyrighted in the 19th century. Copyright doesn't attach to the damaged versions your working from, but to the original version, printed in 18whatever. Although I'm starting to agree we should just delete and go with the lower res version your offering, just to end this . Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would feel much better if someone who actually is experienced in copyright law could chime in here. I would certainly support a Keep of the higher res image if it can clearly be determined that the threshold of originality has not been breached, and that Centpacrr understands this idea (this is what it's looking like so far, but I withhold judgement). If it is a misconception on the contributor's part that cleanup that actually makes the image look more like the original somehow produces a new copyright, then that must be clarified. However, the arguments that the lower res image is sufficient for our purposes have validity, and I also agree that we should not be alienating willing contributors. If the lower res image is all we can hope for, then we should take what we can get. Perhaps this is a discussion that should be forwarded to Mike Godwin? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I remain currently neutral on the issue of the copyright status, but I kinda echo Huntster's sentiments here. We have a case of a lower (but NOT LOW) resolution image competing with a higher resolution one. The deal is, the lower resolution is still sufficiently high to meet ANY application in a Wikipedia article; we don't generally use images in article where the image size is much larger than 250x250 pixels, never mind that the LOWER resolution image under this debate is 2,060×1,848, which is more than adequate for any use here. Even if we presume that we have the legal right (I do not say we do, I concede the point for arguements sake) to upload the higher resolution image, there does not seem to be a compelling reason to do so if doing so creates such a fuss. This seems a case where, even if fully legal and within policy, it seems to be stirring up more trouble than it is worth, especially given that it would be nearly impossible to notice the difference in a Wikipedia article. Its the difference between A) doing what you can do just because you can, with no net benefit, and B) doing what is right in terms of keeping the peace, especially where option B has nearly no downside. Give me option B every time and twice on sundays. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very much agree. I think what I was trying to say above is that this could be a learning situation all around, both for us and for Centpacrr, if it can be determined that there is no copyright on this and similar restored images. If this is the case, and Centpacrr consents, then keep the high res image. Otherwise, keep the lower res and both sides still come out winners. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree with Huntster and Jayron32 that keeping the "lo-res" would be a good compromise, even though I'm certain the hi-res version is uncopyrightable, the licensing on the image we keep should reflect that it's a PD image with no claim on any additional copyright or licensing. It sets a terrible precedent to allow digital restorations (of any scope or resolution) to be seperately licensed from the underlying image, the way they are on this image. If Centpacrr will remove the seperate license, and allow the lower resolution image to remain in the collection in that state, then that's fine (although I agree it should go to the Commons). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Many of the commenters above have quoted Wikipedia's own article on the Bridgman case. This would be a bad idea. Just as we don't allow WP articles to be a source in other WP articles, nor should we cite our own 'anyone can write here' page as an authoritative citation for the interpretations of complex law. Instead, I suggest that this be escalated up to Mike Godwin, whose employ requires him to examine this sort of issue. The question of whether or not extrapolation of data from two incomplete sources and reconstruction thereof by a novel process is enough to differentiate derivative copyrighted work from slavish reproduction is above my pay grade, and my argument that we err on the side of legal caution and respect to our community and the wider internet has been dismissed, so I encourage Centpacrr to ignore the WP:LEGAL issues, and head right to his attorney, who can then contact the OTRS people on his behalf. This is absolutely an issue of law, not of community decision, and while, frankly, I'd love to see the Foundation get sued for this stuff a few times, just so that proper guidelines which adhere to Florida and federal law are written, I'll settle for this one person getting a proper hearing from those who have the training the larger community lacks. ThuranX (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, right, that's really helpful... Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) pointed us in the direction of that court ruling first, but rather than just rely on our article, I looked for the transcript of the decision elsewhere, which I also linked to in my last post. I'm reasonably confident Mike Godwin will know exactly which side of Public Domain this falls on. As for pointing the user in the direction of seeking legal counsel, exactly what are you doing? If he brings it here, he will be barred, blocked, banned. Are you on his side or what? You know the rules about WP:NLT. It's pretty specific, NO LEGAL THREATS. I tend to think you're walking a fine line by suggesting another user resort to this. I'm gonna try to stay out of this now until Mike or someone else as qualified responds, and I really hope this sets a few new ground rules for what is and is not acceptable for uploads. This really needs to be clarified. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the same issue here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to the Commons. It was clear that any effort put into the restoration was to make it a slavish copy of the original. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this was not PD to begin with then why is there no OTRS ticket to verify the identity of the uploader and release of the image under the GFDL? Also, this has got to be the longest and most unreadable legal notice I've ever seen. Delete as not worth the trouble since the lower resolution image can easily be resized and the legal notice is ridiculously long and we don't have an OTRS ticket. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Centpacrr: It would be easier to tell how much creativity restoring this image may or may not have involved if you could actually provide links to the original, unrestored scans for comparison. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the last thing in the world I am interested in is being involved in litigation over a copyright issue, I have mooted the question by creating a new derivative illustration based on the original restoration of mine that I contributed on June 2. I have now substituted the derivative version for my original file and have also added the new illustration to Commons. The new version illustrates exactly the same things that I intended the earlier version to cover but does not suffer from the "slavish reproduction" issues of the file I contributed earlier and thus should close this matter. For anyone who wants to view the high resolution version of my restoration of the map, I have also added a link to it in the "External Links" section of the Transcontinental railroad article. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• I agree it makes it moot, a reasonable compromise. I added the now commons tag for you, and added some categories to it at the commons page. Although, I would still like to hear from Mike Godwin or someone else with a law background about some of the underlying issues discussed in this thread. It will have to be stated what the rules are about this subject sometime, or this will eventually happen again on other images. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I also agree that the overall question of copyright issues relating to complex digital composited restorations and reconstructions of otherwise PD image files should probably be addressed by Wikipedia counsel as it will effect what, how, and even if I will contribute in the future any more of the hundreds of similar high quality restored historic image files that I have created over the past decade. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Whoa...no offense, but the gray background looks horrible - and it covers important details in Mexico and Canada. The image should be as it was when the government published it. --NE2 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This illustration is the compromise necessary to resolve the copyright issues ("Slavish reproductions") with my original digital restoration and is also the file that now resides in Commons so that the version on English Wikipedia can be deleted. It is also not intended to illustrate anything about railroads in Mexico or Canada so they have been removed. (This also qualifies the image file as a derivative work thereby mooting the Bridgeman issue.) I have added a link to full size high resolution version of my restoration of the map on both the Transcontinental railroad page (External Links) and in the description of the derivative illustration so it is fully available exactly where it has been for seven years. With that, it is time to let this issue rest. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That image is a clearly inferior version. As a compromise, I've reverted back to the lower-quality image you originally uploaded. --NE2 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tangential Comment Please don't put any expectations in WMF legal counsel. As someone who has been particularly following such questions since 2006, this is not first or even the tenth time I have seen an appeal to the sitting WMF counsel (or volunteer legal team when that was the set-up) over a copyright question. Never has a clear answer been given. Copyright is not a clear answer sort of topic. There are people around here and Commons that know alot about copyright, there are people around who have copyright law day-jobs. They can give some great background pointers, examples of similar situations and how they have been handled. But clear answers, are just not available on this topic. I realize most of you wanting answers won't take my word at this point, but just keep an open mind about the possibility no one will give you the answer you can take to the bank on these questions. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is a good place to start.--BirgitteSB 19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see that User:NE2 has decided to unilaterally again revert this file to the my original restoration thus putting this matter back into dispute, so I guess that means I will just keep to myself the many other high quality restorations and/or scans of historic railroad related maps, photographs, documents, and my own original photographs made along the CPRR and other grades that I have spent thousands of hours creating over the past decade and had planned to share with the Wikipedia community by uploading and placing them in articles to which they relate. I regret having to make this decision as I think many people might have found them interesting, but I guess that's just the way it will have to be. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Since you're not interested in sharing a map of the North American transcontinental railroads in 1887, how are we to believe you are interested in sharing those other images? --NE2 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly while I strongly disagree with Centpacrr on some the central determinations regarding this issue. I am really disappointed to watch provocative approach NE2 is continuing to take in promoting his position. When you are truly confident in your position it is better to let those who disagree with you seek answers from knowledgeable people who have not yet been involved in the discussion. Let them find discover, in a less confrontational situation, that your position is strong and broadly supported and give them time to come to terms with what that means. There is no deadline here, nor is there any deception in the disparate position. Why not give them a chance to investigate the issue with open-minds simply let the stronger position become evident? Why provoke an immediate concession? What is gained by again escalating the dispute with an edit war? The history is there. The files can wait. Whatever anyone may think about what (if any) IP rights Centpacrr is due on his work, he is very much due the respect of having the chance to investigate and come to terms with the issue without being baited. I would really like to see NE2 strike the comment @ 20:45 and step away from this dispute for a bit.--BirgitteSB 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm talking about the original version that he himself uploaded. As you can see below, I have reversed my position. --NE2 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that before your later edit. I wonder if there is a new way of handling edit conflicts, because I didn't get a warning. I appreciate that you softened your approach before reading my message. And I am glad my concern was unnecessary, but I was afraid this was about to escalate further when I wrote that.--BirgitteSB 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested until a different version taken from my family's railroad history website was substituted for the one I contributed and began this whole kefuffle. As for potential future contributions you can judge what they might have been by viewing all the image files I have contributed over the past three years in this gallery of images. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete the 3090x2772 and 1879x1269 versions; keep the original 2060x1848 version uploaded originally by Centpacrr. After discussing it on Commons, I realize that there may have been enough creativity involved. --NE2 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I say that this entire discussion has given me a headache? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2: Centpacrr and NE2, can we please just agree that the originally uploaded medium res image is the best solution to this whole problem? Yes, the high res would be nice, but it isn't necessary, and since the medium res has already been licensed under GFDL, it is entirely unnecessary to upload an even lower res version that removes quite a bit of the original detail. I'm asking both parties to please let this rest. Once the discussion is complete, I can take care of moving the image to Commons, along with the appropriate histories. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to those who have asked what the "original" scan looked like, and how the restoration is different, briefly this is how I created my digital restoration of the map. First let me say that there is no single "original unmodified scan" of the map. Instead I created my original digital reconstruction and restoration of the map seven years ago by compositing multiple scans that I made at 600dpi of two damaged partial copies of the quite large (20.5 x 18.5) original map. After compositing these "raw" scans, I had a digital image file composed of about 138,000,000 pixels to restore. I then recreated still missing sections often virtually pixel by pixel, copied and moved elements of type to recreate missing words and names, digitally repaired tears and areas of discoloration owing to foxing and staining, color corrected the image, digitally removed crease marks and other defects, and made literally hundreds of other adjustments (many of which were also pixel by pixel) to achieve the final digitally reconstructed, composited, and restored image.

I have done this kind of detailed work professionally for many years and you can see some examples of the kind of complex projects I have done here, here, and here. I have digitally restored literally thousands of damaged historic photographs, maps, documents, and other images over that time, and based on what I had to work with on this map it was certainly one of the ten most complex projects that I have ever done. As I recall I spent probably 25 to 30 hours working in this image, and if I had been doing it for a client as opposed for my own family's railroad history site would have likely charged a fee of about $600 for the work. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep 100dpi res version; Delete 150dpi res version from Wikipedia server: I am now willing to leave the version of the digital file I created which produces a 100dpi resolution image and that I released to Wikipedia on June 2 with a GDFL license, however the larger digital file that I also created that produces a 150dpi version and which was uploaded later by another without my knowledge or consent has not been released and therefore MUST be deleted from any Wikipedia server on which it now resides as it is still easily retrievable therefrom by the public. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Thank you Centpacrr for this. If you and NE2 agree, once this is closed I'll remove all versions save for the original upload, and then move everything, history, etc, to overwrite the file that Centpacrr uploaded to Commons. Sound reasonable? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes that is acceptable -- please do so without delay. Thank you. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• I have replaced the temporary version that I previously uploaded on Commons with the correct 100dpi restoration there (on Commons) and have added a "Now on Commons" tag to the en.wikipedia "File" page so that it can now be deleted. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Okay, this appears to have been worked out, for which I thank both parties. I'll give this another 24 hours for additional comments and, if there are no objections, this will be closed and the copies here deleted. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete, I9. Blueboy96 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged ((self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0)), but there is a watermark in the corner that says "www.Tuzyaka.tk". —Bkell (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete all, I9. Blueboy96 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are all tagged ((self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0)) and claimed to be "personal picture[s]", but they bear watermarks in the lower left-hand corner that say "Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi", which Google informs me is Turkish for "Konya Metropolitan Municipality". —Bkell (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:K115.jpg
• File:K81.jpg
• File:K41.jpg
• File:K26.jpg
• File:Konyaa.jpg
• File:K2t.jpg
• File:Zi37.jpg — this one additionally credits "Zeki Oğuz"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete both, I9. Blueboy96 20:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged ((self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0)) and claimed to be a "personal picture", but there is a watermark in the lower right-hand corner that says wowTURKEY.com. —Bkell (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another one like it: File:Jjj ph.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.