User talk:Elcobbola: Difference between revisions

General Unless otherwise requested, I will usually respond on this page. If applicable, please include links to the pertinent page(s). I seldom edit on weekends and do not access Wikipedia email during the day (CET/CEST). Issues related to the Commons should be addressed on the Commons and will not receive a response if left here.

Archives

Archive 01 (11.2007–01.2008) Archive 02 (02.2008–04.2008) Archive 03 (05.2008–07.2008) Archive 04 (08.2008–10.2008) Archive 05 (11.2008–01.2009) Archive 06 (02.2009–04.2009) Archive 07 (05.2009–07.2009) Archive 08 (08.2009–10.2009) Archive 09 (11.2009–01.2010) Archive 10 (02.2010–04.2010) Archive 11 (05.2010–07.2010) Archive 12 (08.2010–10.2010) Archive 13 (11.2010–12.2021)

Hello, ElC; I hope you are well !

I am working on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913/archive2, and need help from the master.

• I can’t decipher the page numbers, but there are maps viewable very early on in Amazon’s “Look Inside” featured of David G. Brown’s 2004 White Hurricane. (Our article is cited to a 2002 version.) If you scroll just a few pages in, you will find them.
• We have a map created in 2007 (best I can tell?) at File:Great Lakes 1913 Storm Shipwrecks.png, which seems to replicate Brown’s work very closely, including detail like how the legend is set up.
• Have a look also at the Table of Contents of Brown’s book— it is organized by Prologue, then Storm dates, then Aftermath. Here’s our 2007 version when the article was promoted FA. We had pretty much the same structure, and what strikes me as a replication of the map. I don’t have a copy of the book.

Is the Image too closely copied? Did Wikipedia use too much of Brown’s work? The FA was promoted in 2007 and you can see how much work has already gone in to the FAR. What next? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Sandy, I am well indeed and hope you are the same.

To overexplain both because it is my nature and to provide more basis, if needed, to assist discussion at FAR:

Copyright subsists in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression (17 U.S.C. § 102), where original means owing its origin to its author (a prohibition on copying) and exhibiting some minimal creative spark. (Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) The underlying map is verifiably from the USGS as purported (the image's source link is dead, but archive.org captured it), so we need only consider the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the other elements (labels, iconography, etc.)

For city/location labeling, Brown has used, and the Commons uploader has clearly copied, black bullets and Times New Roman (?) font. It has been found, however, that additions such as "labels using standard fonts and shapes fall within the narrow category of works that lack even a minimum level of creativity." (William Darden v. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, 488 F.3d 277 (2007)) Thus, even though there is copying, it may have been of elements not expected to be eligible for protection in the first place. Further, regarding arrangement, the Commons version appears not to have slavishly copied the labels (e.g., Milwaukee is over Lake Michigan in Brown, but over Wisconsin in the Commons version.) To get really in the weeds, there is also the potential of the idea/expression merger doctrine: ideas/data/facts are not copyrightable; however, in some cases, it is so difficult to distinguish between an idea and its expression that they are considered to merge. Accordingly, when there is effectively only one way to express an idea (e.g., in relation to arrangement, the geographical location of a ship wreck), copying of that expression is allowed as preclusion would grant a monopoly of the idea.

What concerns me are the wreck icons. A sinking ship icon (as opposed to say, a square, cross, or other common symbol--or even a non-sinking ship), especially with a westward bow, dark shade for crew loss, and light shade for stranded clearly are copied expression from Brown. (Changing the slope of the deck, the sail to a cross, and a line detail merely results in a derivate work and does not eliminate underlying copyright in the original.) There are also, as you note, similarities in the legend.

In consideration of the work (map) as a whole, a test is whether "an average lay observer would [...] recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work." (Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer Cal., 937 F.2d 759, 766 (2d Cir.1991)) I certainly would expect this to be so. The questions, then, may be: 1) are Brown's icons themselves lacking in originality (i.e., by virtue of lacking a creative spark, being "standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium", etc.) and/or 2) are the icons de mininis with respect to the entire work (on this I would argue no, as their inclusion is deliberate and fundamental to the purpose of the map). Related to this test, the Commons version also appears to have copied the specific selection of cities (i.e., the inclusion or omission of cites is itself, and especially in aggregate with other factors, expression.) For example, Brown included Waueksha, WI and so too did the Commons uploader. This seems telling; why a landlocked city on a shipwreck map, and one unnecessary for positional context given the close proximity of Milwaukee? Seems clearly to be slavish copying of Brown's (original) selections.

Ideally, the what next would be for someone to produce an alternative with alterative icons so as not to copy original expression from Brown. Эlcobbola _talk 16:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You, as always, are a gem. I suspected this was tricky and would need your IP expertise. Also, because I don't speak Commons, does that file need to be subjected to deletion ? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, handling is an open question. If Brown's iconography is "standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium"--which is not a judgement I can make; all I know about ships is that Olivers would make dandy anchors--they may not be eligible for copyright protection. This could also be the case if, for example, the icons had been published prior to 1978 without compliance with copyright formalities. These are things a content expert might be able to opine on. Somewhat similarly, if an alternative version is created, it could overwrite the existing file which would change the rationale/format of deletion. The Commons deletion backlog is nearly a year (!!!), so expediency on this end would likely be for naught. Эlcobbola _talk 17:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the safest route here is to re-do the map, and overwrite the existing file. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO what is most likely is that Brown also used the USGS map. The inclusion of Waukesha is a pretty unique feature, and USGS certainly didn't copy it's map from Brown. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't parse. The USGS map is entirely blank. Эlcobbola _talk 17:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, unless I am misunderstanding (which is a possibility), the solution is to take the USGS map, and re-do the icons and legends to something that clearly uses unique and freely available icons. While addressing Waueksha, WI. As an average lay observer, when I look at the two maps now, it is abundantly clear that to my eye, ""an average lay observer would [...] recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work." To find a subject matter expert to opine on the rest of the problem could take a long time. And since the map is used in many places, uploading a new one and overwriting the old file is the most expedient way to address the problem everywhere. (Except the websites where I have already seen the Wikipedia file copied ... <sigh> ... ) An aside: Elc is an international IP expert, and chooses his words carefully; I have found it useful to always pay him heed :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, yes. Think of this as transparencies on an overhead (although perhaps that is now too dated a reference): the bottom transparency is a geographical map and the top transparency is all of the labels, icons, legend, etc. (together, content) This is a case where the uploader took a public domain map for the lower transparency but then copied Brown's original expression related to the content for the top transparency. To be clear, more than Waueksha, WI needs to be addressed; that is just one good tell as, if the uploader had genuinely been creating an original work (rather than copying), it would not be expected to have been included. The top transparency should be recreated without copying of the original elements from Brown. Эlcobbola _talk 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if I did that, and in order to do that, learned about where the various wrecks are from reading multiple sources (but didn't use anythingfrom the Brown map), I'm legally creating a new work of my own which includes / is built on a public domain map? And then with the upload I'd release it into the public domain. North8000 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you needn't even go that far. Take the Brown map, and use it as a reference to place a mere dot for each of the wreck locations on the USGS base. The locations of the wrecks are facts of the world, so Brown's selection of positioning is not original, creative expression. Then place Brown aside and reference it no further. Add whatever labels, icons, cities, elaborations to the aforementioned dots, etc. you personally choose. If you happen to replicate something from Brown's map serendipitously (e.g., use of Chicago and Milwaukee as identified cities), that is okay. Copyright law considers independent creation, meaning that an author created a work without copying from other works, and does not require such creation to be new (novel). Indeed, Feist found "A work may satisfy the independent creation requirement even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying.'" The United States Copyright Office explicitly says "if two authors created works that are similar or even identical, each work could be registered provided that the authors did not copy expression from each other." (The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices) Эlcobbola _talk 21:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough expert help and immense expertise. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 let me know when you have uploaded the new version, so I can re-add it everywhere I deleted it (commented it out). Thanks, Elc! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000 and Elcobbola: if you would like, I can make a new version from scratch. I just need someone to point out where I can source the wreck locations from. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, you are so awesome. One idea I had (not sure how practical it is) is that the size of the icons could correspond to the number of lives lost (bigger icon, more lives lost). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Cool. Regarding sourcing the locatons, I think that elcobbola's 21:08, 4 November 2021 post is important guidance. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Indeed per the 21:08, 4 November 2021 comment, it is perfectly fine to use Brown/the previous image as a source of the wreck locations. The locations are non-protectable facts of the world, so you may derive them from any source as long as the source's original expression thereof is not copied. The second paragraph in this section of my model essay might help explain the notion too. Эlcobbola _talk 16:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: The blank underlying public domain map is (copied from above) at archive.org captured it). North8000 (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC) archive.org captured it)[reply]

@North8000 This is what I put together from the data in my datastore. It is going to be LGPL due to some of the data I used. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Wow!!!....both good and fast. Not sure if you're interested in any ideas for tweaks but if you wanted to add any cities that were involved in the 1913 story, (going just from memory) some ideas would be the twin cities of Port Huron MI/ Sarnia ON, Superior WI (twin city of Duluth), Port Arthur ON (now renamed to Thunder Bay) Also, is there a chance of squeezing in the names of the ships, even if in fine print? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can the lake names be in black? They are hard to see … you continue to be awesome, Guerillero. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on, Guerillero. Although I'm really just here for the IP, not the graphic design, would there perhaps be a benefit to reducing all font sizes so as to reduce the "busyness" and to allow the wreck sites (the true subject of the map) to have more focus? Even state/province abbreviations rather than complete spelling might help reduce visual clutter. Is the pink shading population? Contemporary or as of 1913? Эlcobbola _talk 19:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000/SandyGeorgia: I have carried out most of the changes and uploaded a new version at File:Great Lakes 1913 Storm Shipwrecks.png. No dice on labeling the wrecks. It was too busy -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Cool! North8000 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS:CAPTIONS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#MOS:CAPTION until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ec, I cannot determine what that redirect discussion is trying to accomplish, but I use the shortcut all the time. Help me out here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume I've only been notified as the creator (in 2008!) of the redirect. I'm similarly unaware of contemporary issues, but I'll take a look at the discussion and comment. Эlcobbola _talk 17:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was clarified there ... thanks, Ec! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ec, it took me a long time to sort out what the original poster was saying, but I pinged you to an image discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cirrus cloud/archive1; if weather.gov is copying Commons images without attribution, that casts a reliable source in a poor light, so there is concern. But I don't know that we can be sure the image was "ours" first. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ec; you're still a star! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola, Recently, my common account was blocked for a completely unknown reason. I only had 8 edits. I uploaded the photos taken by me on May 14 at the Rajadamnern Stadium. Also I have the source files. Since I am a professional photographer, I need to upload images to continue my activity. Please unblock my account. Journal Ring (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You judged quickly and even took permission from me to edit the discussion page so that I couldn't defend myself or request the removal of the block. Why? Journal Ring (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all you think of me is doing nothing but bad all the time (which you can justify) block me permanently from Wikimedia Commons (as you took away every right from me).

This user is currently blocked from Wikimedia Commons. The latest block log entry from Wikimedia Commons is provided below for reference: 22:05, 29 June 2022 ‪Eclobbola‬ changed block settings ‪MegaMack02‬ with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Low quality copy-paste edits and spamming links to external sites)

MegaMack02 (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]