Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/09/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
duplicate image SecretName101 (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:CSD#F8. --CptViraj (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
just test 46.167.214.5 16:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused image which was superseded by File:Geometry and dimensions of iodine pentafluoride.svg to fix some SVG issues. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 16:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I've created a new global userpage on MetaWiki and would like this userpage to be moved to User:Unkn0wnCat/archive without a redirect or deleted. Thanks in advance. Unkn0wnCat (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 20:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Am dorit sa particip la concursul de fotografie, insa din neatentie am incarcat fotografia fara a specifica codul LMI, astfel particpiarea mea nu este valida Alexandra Elvira (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, încearcă din nou. --Achim (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be Douglas Hofstadter's work -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Confirming that this is indeed Douglas Hofstadter's work, which I uploaded with his permission and at his request. -- Glen Worthey (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Confirmation received. I sent an email to Douglas and he confirms: I am indeed the creator of the BIDEN/USA/HARRIS ambigram, and I hope it won’t be deleted! -- Doug H.
- Really great ending! My apologies for being skeptical, and thank you very much, Glen Worthey, for the upload. Douglas Hofstadter is very creative, and I hope there will be more by him like this, freely licensed in the future
-- Basile Morin (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per above. Original and freely licensed -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be Douglas Hofstadter's work -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Confirming that this is indeed Douglas Hofstadter's work, which I uploaded with his permission and at his request. -- Glen Worthey (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Confirmation received. I sent an email to Douglas and he confirms: I am indeed the creator of the BIDEN/USA/HARRIS ambigram, and I hope it won’t be deleted! -- Doug H.
- Really great ending! My apologies for being skeptical, and thank you very much, Glen Worthey, for the upload. Douglas Hofstadter is very creative, and I hope there will be more by him like this, freely licensed in the future -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per above. Original and freely licensed -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - personal photo for non wikipedian Faisal talk 17:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination - Personal photo by non-contributors (F10). --Alaa :)..! 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
duplicate image SecretName101 (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Salim Khandoker (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MGA73 (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- also file:Firedan.jpg
Unused personal photos of indefinitely blocked user, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as obviously attack-images. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
duplicate image SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 07:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Logo of Female solidarity 3 campaigns - Tsepkalo, Tsikhanouskaya and Babaryka.jpg.png Itsmeant (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
By mistake I uploaded duplicate of (Razam vybary 2020.jpg)
Deleted: copyvio. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thumbnail of unknown man -> out of scope Jarekt (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minnesota Twins logo.svg, this is a complex logo.
ƏXPLICIT 07:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- delete self promotion.C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 10:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 18:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Self promo on en.wp Minoraxtalk 06:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 07:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Self promo on en.wp Minoraxtalk 07:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Self promo on en.wp Minoraxtalk 07:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr.Sandeep mishra (talk · contribs)
[edit]An absolutely amazing amount of unused selfies. Commons is not your personal webhost.I did not nominate the one in use.
- File:IMG-20170708-WA0004.ghh.jpg
- File:I am sk.jkl.jpg
- File:Nishchal and me.jpg
- File:Room nishchal.jpg
- File:Sandeep mishra.k.jpg
- File:Sandeep mishra.nm.jpg
- File:IMG 20180219 135639350.jp.jpg
- File:IMG-20170714-WA0020.jpg
- File:IMG-20170714-WA0022.jpg
- File:Sandeep.jk.jpg
- File:Hiii.jpg
- File:IMG 20170909 110644364.lk.jpg
- File:Sandeep .jp.jpg
- File:Sk m.jpg
- File:Kumar mishra.jpg
- File:IMG s k m.jpg
- File:Mishra ji.jpg
- File:S k in co.jpg
- File:IMG-20170708-WA0005.jpg
- File:IMG-20170708-WA0002.jpg
- File:I am s k m.jpg
- File:I am sandi.jpg
- File:Sandeep mishra.jpg
- File:IMG sandeep.jpg
- File:Sandeep mishr.jpg
- File:Me i.jpg
- File:I am me.jpg
- File:Sandeep mish.jpg
- File:Diwalee.jpg
- File:Satna mw.jpg
- File:Mishra.jpg
- File:Sm.jpg
- File:Sandeep m.jpg
- File:Sandeep kumar mishra.jpg
Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr.Sandeep mishra (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo. Out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 07:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lifeofamason1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a personal photo album. Out of scope.
- File:LIFEOFAMASON.jpg
- File:LIFEOFAMASON - lifeofamason.jpg
- File:LIFEOFAMASON lifeofamason.jpg
- File:Lifeofamason.jpg
Minoraxtalk 08:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp[edit]Dubious claim of own work. Author Arno per exif and a cropped version of her Amazon profile pic. Gbawden (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp (Ray Johnson pix from Liz Cheney's Facebook feed)[edit]Dubious claim of PD-congress. Taken from Liz Cheney's Facebook feed. We have no idea if the photographer was an official photographer or if this was a courtesy pic taken by someone else Gbawden (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp (Douglas A. Munro sculptures in the US)[edit]No FOP for sculptures in the US
Gbawden (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp (Mauro)[edit]Photos of some computer screen display. OoS
Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Kept: 13:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC) by Fitindia, thanks! — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp 4[edit]Photos of copyrighted works
Gbawden (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 17:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp (logos)[edit]Complex logos, need permission. Others are unused personal logos and OoS
Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp 6[edit]Out of scope images, no EDUSE
Gbawden (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC) 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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp (more logos)[edit]Unused logos, some OoS and some too complex too keep without permission
Gbawden (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp artworks[edit]Modern art, no FOP for artwork in US, needs permission from artist
Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp posters[edit]Out of scope "posters" Gbawden (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by George Chernilevsky. --Minoraxtalk 06:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC) 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.
Files in Category:Gbtemp from Facebook[edit]Facebook Grubu (public sharing) - just because its shared on FB doesn't mean its freely licensed
Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC) The villages belongs to Turkey's Şarkışla District. These pictures were taken from people for a survey/research booklet about villages. There are permits for public use within the survey. The permits have been taken separately from persons those who have the pictures. I can make the necessary corrections in upload pages. (I thought the facebok reference was sufficient.) And I can send the image of the joint permissions in the book. For example: The correct permission of this [image] is: "Şarkışla ve Köyleri Kitapçığı (Booklet of Şarkışla and its Villages)" (Kızılırmak Matbaası, 2020) Görsel ve Fotoğraflar Listesi (List of Images and Photos) in the list: "... end of list: görseller önceden izin almaksızın kaynak göstermek kaydıyla serbestçe paylaşılabilir. sahiplerinin açık izni bulunmaktadır (images can be freely shared without prior permission, provided that the source is indicated. It has the permission given by its owners). Given a few days, I'll fix it all. And sometimes I have original images different the Facebook Groups. Example: 1. Image that I have froom booklet: [1] (unspoilt) 2. Image in the Facebook Group: [2] (torn off) Exuce for my English, You can ask if anything is not understood --Buzancar (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
Files in Category:Gbtemp (Howard H. Baker Jr.)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work, found here https://www.bakerdonelson.com/Howard-H-Baker-Jr-1925-2014
Gbawden (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gbtemp Flickrwashing
[edit]Flickrwashing - account has 1 follower and was created in 2021 for flickrwashing
- File:Hyungwon tour monsta x.jpg
- File:IM FANSIGN.jpg
- File:IM the connect tour.png
- File:Joohoney.jpg
- File:Lee Minhyuk fansign.jpg
- File:Lee Minhyuk Monsta X follow.jpg
- File:Monsta x minhyuk.jpg
- File:Monsta x Tour.jpg
- File:Tour The connect.jpg
- File:We are her tour minhyuk.png
Gbawden (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP SK, there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. The earliest statue was completed in 2011 (Statue of Peace) and remains copyrighted.
- File:Comfort Woman Memorial Statue in Yeongcheon.jpg
- File:Jeonju Statue of Peace.jpg
- File:Peace statue comfort woman statue 위안부 소녀상 평화의 소녀상 (1) (22607964614).jpg
- File:Peace statue comfort woman statue 위안부 소녀상 평화의 소녀상 (2) (22940589530).jpg
- File:Peace statue comfort woman statue 위안부 소녀상 평화의 소녀상 (3) (22609310033).jpg
- File:Sonyeosang in 2017.jpg
- File:Sonyeosang in Busan on 2017.JPG
- File:War and Women’s Human Rights Museum 02.jpg
- File:평화의소녀상(Statute of Peace).jpg
ƏXPLICIT 12:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- delete copyright violation, not own work, available on web, have check ris. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 09:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio of https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1863005527128843&set=pb.100002582426994.-2207520000..&type=3. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Heyfromnepal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Flickr washing Minoraxtalk 15:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Either unused personal artwork (out of scope) or DW of another person (missing permission, copyvio).
P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Photo by Gilles Raymond. See deleted history. Regasterios (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Self promo on en.wp Minoraxtalk 15:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Flickr washing Minoraxtalk 15:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Best HD Hilary Duff facebook cover, i.e. copyrighted. Tbhotch™ 01:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Applecider7 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s). Out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
out of scope Minoraxtalk 15:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Infosworldd (talk · contribs)
[edit]Facebook images, missing permission.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Infosworldd (talk · contribs)
[edit]"FBMD" in metadata indicates the images are from Facebook.
- File:PICTUR E09900.jpg
- File:Img9876 prise 2.jpg
- File:Pict0987 Prise 1.jpg
- File:Match Red Star Fc.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete all. I prefer to speedy FB files; DRs are quite backlogged. E4024 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Daisy Duck
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted characters.
COM:COSTUME says "If the costume is a completely original design (not based on any existing character design), and the designer has released it under a free license, it is permitted". These are based on existing character designs. So, these photos are not permitted.
- File:Disney's Festival of Fantasy Parade Finale (16139152543).jpg
- File:Mickey's Boo-To-You Halloween Parade (29173133643).jpg
- File:Mickey's Boo-To-You Halloween Parade (29716239971).jpg
- File:Mickey's Boo-To-You Halloween Parade (29716242511).jpg
- File:Mickey's Boo-To-You Halloween Parade (29716245221).jpg
- File:Mickey's Boo-To-You Halloween Parade (29716247081).jpg
- File:Mickey's Boo-To-You Halloween Parade (29798909915).jpg
- File:Mickey's Boo-To-You Halloween Parade (29798912345).jpg
- File:Mickey's Boo-To-You Halloween Parade (29798914035).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27124521004).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27124633704).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27124634364).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459099400).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459100600).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459116660).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459116960).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27703195236).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27703196816).jpg
- File:ドナルドダックとデイジーダック.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Neutral I don't think that line from COM:COSTUME was meant to be taken as "if A, then B; therefore, if not A, then not B", but rather that photographs of potentially or otherwise non-free costumes have unclear status on Commons. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cosplay at NYCC (60421).jpg, Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/01#Sesame Street, and the last sentence of COM:COSTUME (Present consensus has adopted the view that in order to be a copyright violation, "[t]he photo would have to be primarily of the mask or other separable element of the costume, e.g. focusing on the expression inherent in the mask distinct from that of the general character."). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment Needless to say, the mask is point. As you can see, the subjects in these photos are wearing a mask. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I think in this case we are talking about a copyrighted design. It would be interesting to figure out when it is safe to undelete something like that. Design copies elements from a protected character, but the character changes, so what version of the character is this mask based on? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, but one photo is 
kept, because not enough copyrightable details are seen. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Daisy Duck
[edit]These photos were taken at the Disney's Animal Kingdom, US. No FoP in US for sculptures.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope. Please read the draft. E4024 (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- speedy delete self promotion. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 09:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Tagged draft for csd and it's been deleted. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Gikü (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: No source, no permission. --Achim (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Old photo Sir Som Tam (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 12:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Falls outside of Commons scope; self-promotional image for now-deleted enwiki page. Kevin (aka L235 · t · enwiki) 08:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Gyrostat (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Irrelevant (Personal Photo) photo uploaded part of WLM 2020 - IndrajitDas 11:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
this picture is my own work and i would like to be taken out of wikicommon since it is no longer be used. I realized that i dont want my personal picture to be published on internet therefore i am requesting you to delete it. thanks Aadilashahid94 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - personal image. E4024 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
this picture is my own work and i would like to be taken out of wikicommon since it is no longer be used. I realized that i dont want my personal picture to be published on internet therefore i am requesting you to delete it. thanks Aadilashahid94 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - personal image. --E4024 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
File page without file. Leonel Небојша Sohns 16:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
{{vk}}- Delete: It'd be the first case of disambiguating file pages. I don't support that new approach. --Achim (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Achim. File titles are uniquely assigned to files; there is no need in disambiguation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Info This was originally a regular image, but the filename is wrong. Following the same naming scheme, it should be either File:V Parliament of Portugal (1987jul).svg or File:VI Parliament of Portugal (1991oct).svg. When I noticed the miskate I moved the file and then changed the redirect to be this disambiguation pages, linking to both possible interpretations of the filename. But it is a recent file and an even more recent rename, there's no links from WM projects, and it addressed a doubt that is easy to figure out unaidedly, so I dont insist in keeping this. But it’s better to Delete than to revert to the redirect to File:V Parliament of Portugal (1987jul).svg, to avoid inadverted misdated reuses. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Selfie of a non-notable individual (ro:Andrei Pițigoi) Gikü (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
unused personal file. Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
unused, should be in wikitext if needed. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Instagram. E4024 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete file is not in public domain licensed, need otrs. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, serves no educational purpose whatsoever. 1989 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Moved it to Flickr. - Premeditated (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Is Onima Kashyap in scope? E4024 (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It's in scope, file should be on commons. Searched google to get info about her seem notable. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; copied from FB, no permission. --. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
extremely poor quality AnhaltER1960 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; quality too low for any conceivable use. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The image was in the press and the text here is copyright violation from a review. See here that the contents is also distorted: http://www.ozgurluk.info/kitaplik/webarsiv/vatan/vatan_arsiv/vatan32/kose_yazilari/halk_icin.html E4024 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a weirdly compressed version of https://elwekalanews.net/446759/%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AF%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B8%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B3-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88-%D8%A7/ Ytoyoda (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 09:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Irrelevant (Personal Photo) photo uploaded part of WLM 2020 - IndrajitDas 10:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete F10. --Minoraxtalk 15:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Calligraphy is copyrightable in China (COM:TOO China) and China's FOP only covers outdoor spaces while this photo was apparently taken indoors. Wcam (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 07:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
de:Wetscher GmbH was twice deleted. Its logo is out of project scope due to non-notability. Taivo (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- das Logo wird im Artikel Wetscher verwendet,also wie viele andere sehe ich keinen Grund zum Löschen. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 14:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- und auch in Wikidata ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 08:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- also file:University Theatre.jpg
Out of project scope. Blurry files, the keyboard is not wholly depicted. Categorized as tests. Inadequate description. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Election diagram for the future, with non-existing parties. Out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Clearly not an "own work". E4024 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete no indication of valid license, similar files uploaded in facebook. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 09:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 11:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Most likely not own work. The image implies that the uploader took a photo of their computer screen with a possibly nonfree photo displayed. FunnyMath (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. I've taken this photo from de site https://elarafritzenwalden.tumblr.com/post/183337137445/the-face-of-the-architect-mario-catal%C3%A1n-nebot
- I think this photo is necessary for a new biography now in construction in my user's page.--Lluismdies (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; we need permission of the original photographer or more info to determine PD status. --Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
present on instagram, no evidence of compatible licence https://www.instagram.com/p/Btg-7Yyn3CL/ Joeyconnick (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uploader claims to be author of picture though, regardless of presence on Instagram. I don't know how these things are usually handled. --7dare (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. PCP. please confirm via OTRS to have it undeleted. --Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that this is the own work of the uploader. The subject of this file can be found on many internet images such as this one. Mosbatho (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
“Doubt” is not a verifiable reference. Please provide verifiable references. The subject is for sale to anyone who wants to purchase. After purchase, the subject may be photographed by the buyer. Thank you for your concern. (Mini4WD (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Comment Mini4WD, are you the creator of this image? Did you take this photograph? Or did you take it from some internet site? Please give a statement. --Mosbatho (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This User:Mosbatho has violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines, with verifiable proof, while exhibiting troll-like behavior, with verifiable proof, such as having a recently created account of a month and copying and pasting multiple Deletion Requests in row, on the same day, on the same article, WITHOUT ANY VERIFIABLE RATIONALE and WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF PRIOR DISCUSSION with the original user that posted the images. That's what trolls do.
This User:Mosbatho has continually (5 times) deleted discussion words of another user while editing another user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said. Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
By now, I would not be surprised if this User:Mosbatho has deleted the entire discussion on their page.
Users should not be allowed to waste others' time by going on a Deletion Request spree... especially newly created accounts.
Should someone more intelligent, more mature, more expert, with better manners request additional proof of copyright ownership, it shall be provided.
I will not waste my time to provide addtional proof to this immature, amateur who exhibits troll-like behavior.
Waste of time. Who will waste your time, now?
(Mini4WD (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Comment Mini4WD, cool down and stop this slander. I try it again, the image you have uploaded can be found on various internet sites on which they are not published under a free Creative Commons license. In addition, you are not mentioned as the creator of this image on those homepages I have checked. So again my questions: Mini4WD, are you the author of this image? Mini4WD, did you take this image from any webpage? ---Mosbatho (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
To: Wikipedia Administrator,
Regardless of the outcome of your decision on the matter, I have a few questions, if you please.
Q1: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user going on a "copy & paste" spree of Deletion Requests that do NOT contain the decorum that is stated on the Commons:Deletion requests article.
In that article it is stated, "Please give reasons for your opinion, preferably based on your knowledge of: any binding copyright law; the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, for example Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope or Commons:Photographs of identifiable people; or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on."
Q2: Does Wikipedia Commons decorum require a Deletion Request Nominator to follow the above-stated guideline including reasons, reasons based on knowledge, verifiable reference to binding copyright law, statement of applicability of any Commons policies, or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on?
Q3: Understanding the Uploader bears the burden of providing appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the file is in the public domain or that the original copyright owner has released it under a suitable license, Commons policy goes on to state that, typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified. I am able to specify that the source of the file is from my own camera.
Q4: I accept your decision on the matter, however, I would like to ask if the Commons policy stated, below, applies or not?
"A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States."
Q5: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user continually (5 times) deleting discussion words of another user while editing the other user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said? Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
Q6: The subject of this image is purchased from Poland, on eBay, and is not marked with a manufacturer name, probably since the parts are available for sale separately as in a kit format. When a vehicle is assembled by a user, using separate parts, it may be registered with an MCO (manufacturer's certificate of origin) or if the parts bear ID numbers, the user may register the vehicle under a lost title, so how does Wikipedia handle photos of subjects that have been assembled by a user from separate parts that do not bear manufacturer information?
Thank you, again. (Mini4WD (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC))
- Speedy: https://www.momentslab.it/MOTORE-RICAMBIO-148-x-ROBOT-SMART-451801/Heimwerker.shtml, https://www.ebay.fr/itm/4WD-Smart-Robot-Chassis-Motor-Kit-suit-Arduino-PIC-Raspberry-Engine-Wheel-/263303498857. --Achim (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted images; there is no fair use on Commons Mosbatho (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Please provide verifiable references. The subject is for sale to anyone who wants to purchase. After purchase, the subject may be photographed by the buyer. Thank you for your concern. (Mini4WD (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Comment Mini4WD, you may read Commons:Fair use and Commons:Derivative works. There, you can learn that photographs of copyrighted work ist basically not your own work but a copyright violation. --Mosbatho (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This User:Mosbatho has violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines, with verifiable proof, while exhibiting troll-like behavior, with verifiable proof, such as having a recently created account of a month and copying and pasting multiple Deletion Requests in row, on the same day, on the same article, WITHOUT ANY VERIFIABLE RATIONALE and WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF PRIOR DISCUSSION with the original user that posted the images. That's what trolls do.
This User:Mosbatho has continually (5 times) deleted discussion words of another user while editing another user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said. Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
By now, I would not be surprised if this User:Mosbatho has deleted the entire discussion on their page.
Users should not be allowed to waste others' time by going on a Deletion Request spree... especially newly created accounts.
Should someone more intelligent, more mature, more expert, with better manners request additional proof of copyright ownership, it shall be provided.
I will not waste my time to provide addtional proof to this immature, amateur who exhibits troll-like behavior.
Waste of time. Who will waste your time, now?
(Mini4WD (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Mini4WD, please be not offensive and please stop this slander.
Additional explanation: The picture uploaded by Mini4WD shows the packaging of a toy car. This image of the toy car was created by the manufacturer of this toy car and this manufacturer has the copyright on this color image of the toy car shown on this packaging. So it is not allowed to photograph this color drawing 1:1 and publish it here as "own work" with a free CC license. You can read about this on Commons:Fair use and Commons:Derivative works. By now, it is a copyright violation. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
To: Wikipedia Administrator,
Regardless of the outcome of your decision on the matter, I have a few questions, if you please.
Q1: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user going on a "copy & paste" spree of Deletion Requests that do NOT contain the decorum that is stated on the Commons:Deletion requests article.
In that article it is stated, "Please give reasons for your opinion, preferably based on your knowledge of: any binding copyright law; the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, for example Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope or Commons:Photographs of identifiable people; or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on."
Q2: Does Wikipedia Commons decorum require a Deletion Request Nominator to follow the above-stated guideline including reasons, reasons based on knowledge, verifiable reference to binding copyright law, statement of applicability of any Commons policies, or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on?
Q3: Understanding the Uploader bears the burden of providing appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the file is in the public domain or that the original copyright owner has released it under a suitable license, Commons policy goes on to state that, typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified. I am able to specify that the source of the file is from my own camera.
Q4: I accept your decision on the matter, however, I would like to ask if the Commons policy stated, below, applies or not?
"A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States."
Q5: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user continually (5 times) deleting discussion words of another user while editing the other user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said? Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
Q6: If all else disqualifies this image, does this exerpt from the Commons policy apply, since the manufacturer is located in Japan?
"The question, then, is whether toys are to be treated as vehicles and furniture: exempt from copyright protection on the basis of being utilitarian objects. Indeed, some countries, such as Japan,[10] generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright."
Thank you, again. (Mini4WD (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC))
- Delete: COM:PACKAGING. Might be uploaded to en:wp as fair use. --Achim (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PACKAGING. --Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted images; there is no fair use on Commons Mosbatho (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Please provide verifiable references. The subject is for sale to anyone who wants to purchase. After purchase, the subject may be photographed by the buyer. Thank you for your concern. (Mini4WD (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Comment Mini4WD, you may read Commons:Fair use and Commons:Derivative works. There, you can learn that photographs of copyrighted work ist basically not your own work but a copyright violation. --Mosbatho (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This User:Mosbatho has violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines, with verifiable proof, while exhibiting troll-like behavior, with verifiable proof, such as having a recently created account of a month and copying and pasting multiple Deletion Requests in row, on the same day, on the same article, WITHOUT ANY VERIFIABLE RATIONALE and WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF PRIOR DISCUSSION with the original user that posted the images. That's what trolls do.
This User:Mosbatho has continually (5 times) deleted discussion words of another user while editing another user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said. Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
By now, I would not be surprised if this User:Mosbatho has deleted the entire discussion on their page.
Users should not be allowed to waste others' time by going on a Deletion Request spree... especially newly created accounts.
Should someone more intelligent, more mature, more expert, with better manners request additional proof of copyright ownership, it shall be provided.
I will not waste my time to provide addtional proof to this immature, amateur who exhibits troll-like behavior.
Waste of time. Who will waste your time, now?
(Mini4WD (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Mini4WD, please be not offensive and please stop this slander.
Additional explanation: The picture uploaded by Mini4WD shows the packaging of a toy car. This image of the toy car was created by the manufacturer of this toy car and this manufacturer has the copyright on this color image of the toy car shown on this packaging. So it is not allowed to photograph this color drawing 1:1 and publish it here as "own work" with a free CC license. You can read about this on Commons:Fair use and Commons:Derivative works. By now, it is a copyright violation. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
To: Wikipedia Administrator,
Regardless of the outcome of your decision on the matter, I have a few questions, if you please.
Q1: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user going on a "copy & paste" spree of Deletion Requests that do NOT contain the decorum that is stated on the Commons:Deletion requests article.
In that article it is stated, "Please give reasons for your opinion, preferably based on your knowledge of: any binding copyright law; the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, for example Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope or Commons:Photographs of identifiable people; or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on."
Q2: Does Wikipedia Commons decorum require a Deletion Request Nominator to follow the above-stated guideline including reasons, reasons based on knowledge, verifiable reference to binding copyright law, statement of applicability of any Commons policies, or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on?
Q3: Understanding the Uploader bears the burden of providing appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the file is in the public domain or that the original copyright owner has released it under a suitable license, Commons policy goes on to state that, typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified. I am able to specify that the source of the file is from my own camera.
Q4: I accept your decision on the matter, however, I would like to ask if the Commons policy stated, below, applies or not?
"A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States."
Q5: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user continually (5 times) deleting discussion words of another user while editing the other user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said? Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
Q6: If all else disqualifies this image, does this exerpt from the Commons policy apply, since the manufacturer is located in Japan?
"The question, then, is whether toys are to be treated as vehicles and furniture: exempt from copyright protection on the basis of being utilitarian objects. Indeed, some countries, such as Japan,[10] generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright."
Thank you, again. (Mini4WD (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC))
- Delete: COM:PACKAGING. Might be uploaded to en:wp as fair use. --Achim (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PACKAGING. --Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted images; there is no fair use on Commons Mosbatho (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Please provide verifiable references. The subject is for sale to anyone who wants to purchase. After purchase, the subject may be photographed by the buyer. Thank you for your concern. (Mini4WD (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Comment Mini4WD, you may read Commons:Fair use and Commons:Derivative works. There, you can learn that photographs of copyrighted work ist basically not your own work but a copyright violation. --Mosbatho (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This User:Mosbatho has violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines, with verifiable proof, while exhibiting troll-like behavior, with verifiable proof, such as having a recently created account of a month and copying and pasting multiple Deletion Requests in row, on the same day, on the same article, WITHOUT ANY VERIFIABLE RATIONALE and WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF PRIOR DISCUSSION with the original user that posted the images. That's what trolls do.
This User:Mosbatho has continually (5 times) deleted discussion words of another user while editing another user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said. Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
By now, I would not be surprised if this User:Mosbatho has deleted the entire discussion on their page.
Users should not be allowed to waste others' time by going on a Deletion Request spree... especially newly created accounts.
Should someone more intelligent, more mature, more expert, with better manners request additional proof of copyright ownership, it shall be provided.
I will not waste my time to provide addtional proof to this immature, amateur who exhibits troll-like behavior.
Waste of time. Who will waste your time, now?
(Mini4WD (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Mini4WD, please be not offensive and please stop this slander.
Additional explanation: The picture uploaded by Mini4WD shows the packaging of a toy car. This image of the toy car was created by the manufacturer of this toy car and this manufacturer has the copyright on this color image of the toy car shown on this packaging. So it is not allowed to photograph this color drawing 1:1 and publish it here as "own work" with a free CC license. You can read about this on Commons:Fair use and Commons:Derivative works. By now, it is a copyright violation. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
To: Wikipedia Administrator,
Regardless of the outcome of your decision on the matter, I have a few questions, if you please.
Q1: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user going on a "copy & paste" spree of Deletion Requests that do NOT contain the decorum that is stated on the Commons:Deletion requests article.
In that article it is stated, "Please give reasons for your opinion, preferably based on your knowledge of: any binding copyright law; the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, for example Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope or Commons:Photographs of identifiable people; or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on."
Q2: Does Wikipedia Commons decorum require a Deletion Request Nominator to follow the above-stated guideline including reasons, reasons based on knowledge, verifiable reference to binding copyright law, statement of applicability of any Commons policies, or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on?
Q3: Understanding the Uploader bears the burden of providing appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the file is in the public domain or that the original copyright owner has released it under a suitable license, Commons policy goes on to state that, typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified. I am able to specify that the source of the file is from my own camera.
Q4: I accept your decision on the matter, however, I would like to ask if the Commons policy stated, below, applies or not?
"A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States."
Q5: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user continually (5 times) deleting discussion words of another user while editing the other user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said? Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
Q6: If all else disqualifies this image, does this exerpt from the Commons policy apply, since the manufacturer is located in Japan?
"The question, then, is whether toys are to be treated as vehicles and furniture: exempt from copyright protection on the basis of being utilitarian objects. Indeed, some countries, such as Japan,[10] generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright."
Thank you, again. (Mini4WD (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC))
- Delete: COM:PACKAGING. Might be uploaded to en:wp as fair use. --Achim (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PACKAGING. --Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Is this taken from Facebook? Is he in scope? E4024 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not licensed to be on commons taken from facebook. 09:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Most likely license laundering. Note the image was uploaded on Flickr on the same day that it was uploaded on Commons. The same image was deleted before due to lack of permission; the uploader reuploaded the image. FunnyMath (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs OTRS from Guillermo Alarcon. --Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Most likely license laundering. Note the image was uploaded on Flickr on the same day that it was uploaded on Commons. The same image was deleted before due to lack of permission; the uploader reuploaded the image. FunnyMath (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Most likely license laundering. Note the image was uploaded on Flickr on the same day that it was uploaded on Commons. A similar image was deleted before due to lack of permission; the uploader reuploaded the image. FunnyMath (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
violates personal rights. Deface or delete 194.153.217.230 10:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- The subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place. // Liftarn (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Liftarn. --★ Poké95 12:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Liftarn. Public space, no expectation of privacy - straightforward keep. Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --~ Moheen (keep talking) 03:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Shows the woman in an unfavorable light and was taken without her permission. Also, maybe taken on private grounds. RabbitFromMars (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- As previous discussion. Public space, no expectation of privacy - straightforward keep. // Liftarn (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- We don't actually know if this is really a public space. --RabbitFromMars (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is said to have been taken at the University College Hospital so we know that. // Liftarn (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Even if the photo is legal, Wikipedia should be better than using photos of unknowing individuals, especially ones that show them in a bad light. I suggest deleting the photo wherever it appears in a Wikipedia article. Apart from taking advantage of this person, this is potentially a big lawsuit waiting to happen and Wikipedia should be wise enough to prevent it. Besides, nobody really needs a photo of a pregnant woman smoking, everybody knows what it looks like. If it's so important, surely someone can stage such a photo with the consent of the woman and/or her face not recognisable. --RabbitFromMars (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not a valid argument for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Even if the photo is legal, Wikipedia should be better than using photos of unknowing individuals, especially ones that show them in a bad light. I suggest deleting the photo wherever it appears in a Wikipedia article. Apart from taking advantage of this person, this is potentially a big lawsuit waiting to happen and Wikipedia should be wise enough to prevent it. Besides, nobody really needs a photo of a pregnant woman smoking, everybody knows what it looks like. If it's so important, surely someone can stage such a photo with the consent of the woman and/or her face not recognisable. --RabbitFromMars (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is said to have been taken at the University College Hospital so we know that. // Liftarn (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- We don't actually know if this is really a public space. --RabbitFromMars (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file with transmission code; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation, not own work, files is taken from blogs. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 09:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Is this file free to upload here? E4024 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Not proper licensed for file to be used in commons. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not own work, copyright violation, files available on SoundCloud and elsewhere. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Screenshot from the Chalcographie Inventory of the Louvre, wearing a copyright « © 2012 - Musée du Louvre, Département des Arts graphiques ». Copyright violation. Chassipress (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file with transmission code; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not own work, copyright violation. Files available on Pinterest and Instagram blog. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Metadata credits Ingarth Skjærstad Ytoyoda (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
non-used personal image/selfie Denniss (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Promo on en.wp Minoraxtalk 08:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- speedy: F10 --Achim (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: As per COM:SELFIE. --jdx Re: 08:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The file is copyrighted as a logo and is not free or proprietary, the license is false AleUst (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
使用しないためである いっくん53 (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
http://www.stardustpictures.co.jp/book/2020/yagirabon.html からの無断使用。肖像権侵害。 Aikata28 (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Including copyrighted logo of a football club. Gervant of Shiganshina (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Impossible to use Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The same image can be found on her Twitter account, see here. Is there a valid OTRS permission? Mosbatho (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:OTRS permission required. --ƏXPLICIT 00:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
non-used logo, possible derivative problem Denniss (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
unused personal file. Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
source text has a vague discription. proabably not the original creator 웃OO 04:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Needs OTRS from Scalet. --Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Posted as "Own work" from 2020, but the pic was already on web in 2012. https://blog.usaid.gov/2012/11/16-day-challenge-lets-eliminate-gender-violence/ QTHCCAN (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: I fixed the source and license. --Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a photo of me that was taken at a private event. The group photo has been cropped without my permission to focus on my face. 135.23.141.75 16:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- IP user 135.23.141.75, I uploaded the group photo, and I cropped your image from it. If you look at Category:Headshots of individuals cropped from the Canadian Film Centre's photos you'll see over 700 other individuals had their headshots cropped from Canadian Film Centre images.
So, you weren't singled out. You aren't being harassed.
- Brittany Allen is standing right beside you, in that group photo. And the photo of her, cropped from the group photo, is used to illustrate the article about her.
- We do consider deleting properly licensed images. We don't generally delete properly licensed images, if they are in use in a wikipedia article. This image is not in use. So you can argue for us to delete it, as a courtesy to you.
- I am pretty sure the image is properly licensed, so I'd recommend you not try to argue it should be deleted because it was taken at a private event. It was an event organized by the Canadian Film Centre, and they authorized photographers to circulate among the guests, taking photos. I believe most people will think their event, their rules, and that by agreeing to attend the event you tacitly agreed for them to publish photos that included you.
- Arguments you could make for courtesy deletion? You could request deletion because you thought the image was unflattering. You could request deletion because you have a dangerous stalker, and you are trying to reduce your online footprint. You could say you had undergone a religious conversion, and images of yourself were against your new religion.
- The very first thing I would advise you to do, if you still want the image deleted, would be to confirm your identity. Some individuals have frenemies, or genuinely malicious enemies, who come here and make disruptive claims and disruptive requests, to mess up public figures. So, I recommend you confirm your identity. We have been through this so many times we have a procedure for this. We have a special committee of trusted volunteers, who handle correspondence with outsiders. You email them, at
permissions-commons, and they will confidentially confirm your real world identity, so we know you are not a frenemy.
wikimedia.org - If your main concern is that you just don't think this image is flattering, and you would be okay having a fairly written article about you, someday, consider sending us a selfie you like better. Geo Swan (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It has been ten days, and complainant has neither returned to offer an explanation as to why a courtesy deletion is in order, or followed the advice to identify themselves through an OTRS ticket. Geo Swan (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Call for closure - IP has made a request with no policy basis, and has taken no steps to confirm their identity - so call for closure. Geo Swan (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- 2nd Call for closure Geo Swan (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- 3rd Call for closure Geo Swan (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was expecting a notification about this. I'm new to this process and find it confusing how and where I'm supposed to respond. I am requesting a courtesy deletion because I most definitely find this photo of me unflattering. I'm ok with the group photo being online with Brittany, but not the closeup of my face. I will have my identity confirmed in the meantime, but please consider removing the closeup. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.203.154 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
There is an OTRS email received for “File:Bryan_Atkinson_at_the_CFC_25th_Anniversary_Celebration_in_LA.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2020112610011185. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Per Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Canada, consent is not required. Plus it's the only available image to illustrate this subject. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I placed a {{Speedy}} tag on this image, as the uploader, after reconsidering the identity confirmation through OTRS. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
You cannot request speedy deletion of a file after two years. Courtesy deletion period is one week at the most. This requires a discussion. E4024 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also read the closing statement of admin A. Crbz at the previous DR, please. --E4024 (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I just checked. E4024 is correct. There is a 7 day time-limit (originally a 30 day time-limit) on uploader requests for speedy deletion.
- Delete I think we should honour his request, and grant him a courtesy deletion, given that he did, eventually, take steps to confirm his real life identity.
- I googled Bryan Atkinson. The photo on Bryan Atkinson's personal website is clearly the same guy as in this image. So, even if there were no OTRS ticket, I would have no doubts the initial request came from the real life Bryan Atkinson. Geo Swan (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- The matter is not wether the name of the person in this filename and filepage matches the person depiced in the pixels of this image, but rather
- whether the user requesting this deletion is the said person and
- (more importantly), presuming 1., whether this person has the right to request for the deletion in discussion.
- I would contend that the answer to 2. is no and therefore the answer to 1. is moot. The main argument presented is that this photo was taken at a private event, which, depending on the preferred meaning of the word "private", could even be true (maybe there was a bouncer at the entrance, checking for r.s.v.p.s…) — but an event held to celebrate the anniversary of an institution is never private in the same way John Doe’s batchelor party is. Furthermore, this is not a candid photo: it was clearly staged and posed with all subjects clearly in consent. I see no reason to have this file deleted and therefore I favor it should be kept. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am the one who made the second request for deletion of this image. I am not the subject of the photo, I am merely the contributor who cropped the image.
Tuvalkin, can you help me out? Are you suggesting that someone, other than the Real Life Bryan Atkinson (RLBA) created a phony webpage solely to add credibility to a tricky attempt to delete an image of RLBA? Wow, that seems like it would be an awful lot of work, for very little payoff...
- Do I have standing to request deletion of the image, even though I am not the subject, RLBA? Yeah, I think I do. In the first discussion I was firm that we shouldn't delete the image unless the anonymous IP used OTRS to confirm they were the RLBA. The first discussion concluded with the information that an OTRS ticket WAS started. The ticket number indicates the ticket was opened on November 26th, and the discussion was closed on November 28th. I know I made multiple calls for closure, but I don't think two days was long enough for RLBA to complete all the OTRS steps.
- I've recently had some experiences that made clear to me that third party people, who want to request deletion of an image of themselves, or an article about themselves, find our instructions on how to make those deletion requests through OTRS far from clear.
Over the last seven years I cropped about 700 headshots similar to this one. In the last year or so there were several requests to delete images. I linked to this discussion in the discussion over the most recent request, when I asked the individual making that request to use OTRS to confirm their identity.
They resorted to vandalism, and bad language... [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and they claimed they knew I would not support deletion, even if they confirmed their real life identity. I felt sure I would support deletion of an unused file, if the person making the request confirmed their identity. But, I had not done so for RLBA, so I decided to do so today.
- You are correct, RLBA's initial request was based on the mistaken notion we needed his permission, when the copyright holder had released the image under a free license. But, in their final set of comments, they amended their request, saying they found the image unflattering.
- Note: See also the related discussion, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jeremy Boxen at the Gale Anne Hurd Masterclass (6829984489).jpg, where Liz called for deletion of the sole headshot of an individual, because of slight distortion.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am the one who made the second request for deletion of this image. I am not the subject of the photo, I am merely the contributor who cropped the image.
- I googled Bryan Atkinson. The photo on Bryan Atkinson's personal website is clearly the same guy as in this image. So, even if there were no OTRS ticket, I would have no doubts the initial request came from the real life Bryan Atkinson. Geo Swan (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Call for cloosure Geo Swan (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Administrator Arthur Crbz, could you return here and explain why you closed this discussion so soon after the subject's identity was confirmed through OTRS? Geo Swan (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: To answer your question above — «Are you suggesting that someone, other than the Real Life Bryan Atkinson (RLBA) created a phony webpage solely to add credibility to a tricky attempt to delete an image of RLBA?» No, I’m not suggesting that. I’d say that RLBA’s website is simply RLBA’s website. What we cannot be sure of is whether IP:135.23.141.75 is RLBA. It would be simple for RLBA to post in his website (which you forgot to link to, by the way) a note confirming his desire to have this photo deleted and linking to this discussion page — or to do it in a properly signed post to any social media site where he has an established presence. That would confirm my point 1 above, and would leave us to discuss point 2. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Tuválkin , RLBA set in motion OTRS confirmation of their identity. It is more private way to confirm their identity than by placing a public note on a publicly available website.
- I remain mystified as to why administrator Arthur Crbz would close the request right when RLBA started the OTRS process.
- I've given this some thought recently. It seems many third parties are daunted and confused by being told to send a request to the OTRS email address. They don't know what to say, they don't know what to expect to happen next. I think we should provide a simple form, similar to the form for sending a private email to another contributor's private email address. It should assure third parties that their request will be dealt with anonymously. It should tell them to expect an email from a trusted committee member in the next 24 or 48 hours. Maybe it should link to an FAQ. Geo Swan (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Courtesy deletion applies to unused photos. If you want courtesy deletion, you need to to manage replacing current usage with other appropriate photos first. Ankry (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - I see no reason to delete this image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nori Malo-Renault
[edit]The artist died in 1953. Her works are not in the public domain yet in France. OTRS permission of the legal successors is necessary.
- File:Broderie allégorie et paon, décor haut de paravent, Nori Malo-Renault (1871-1953).jpg
- File:Femme noble, Broderie (dans un médaillon ovale) par Nori Malo-Renault (1871-1953).jpg
- File:Les lévriers, Broderie (1918 ou 1948), signé Nori Malo-Renault (1871-1953).jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- OTRS received, we need time to check it. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 21:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Kvardek du: Please move the ticket to a permissions queue. Storkk (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: for now, leaving it to the OTRS process. --Jcb (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nori Malo-Renault
[edit]Nori Malo-Renault died in 1953. No OTRS.
- File:10 livres d'exception, reliés par Nori Mori Malo-Renault.jpg
- File:Broderie les lévriers 1948 Nori MR.jpg
- File:Gravé par Mme N. M-R.pdf
- File:La Dinette de Nori MR.jpg
- File:Marie-Annick e-f Nori MR.jpg
- File:MarieAnnick e-f originale Nori MaloRenault.jpg
- File:Paravent Nori MR.jpg
- File:Pastel Dama-Jean gravé par Nori MR.jpg
- File:Reproduction tableau Gladstone par Nori MR.jpg
- File:Salomé e-f originale Nori MaloRenault.jpg
- File:Salomé eau forte Nori Malo-Renault.jpg
- File:Salomé eau-forte Nori Malo-Renault.pdf
Chassipress (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Please try to contact the uploader: these are obviously coming from his family's ressources.
- He's probably not able to prepare an OTRS, and it would be more constructive to help him with that.
- Regards, --Daehan (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Bonjour Monsieur Chassipress,
- Pouvez-vous donner, s'il vous plait, la traduction en français de tout le texte concernant la suppression des fichiers listés ci-dessus.
- Remarque : cette suppression aurait pour conséquence irrémédiable la "fermeture" de la page Wikipédia Nori Malo-Renault (1871-1953).
- De plus il existe déjà un avertissement par un bandeau que: l'on ne doit pas (ou ne peut pas ?) copier ces fichiers à partir de ce "Commons", est-ce insuffisant?
- Cordialement.--François Malo-Renault (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Pour publier ces œuvres sur Commons et sur Wikipédia en français, il faut que les ayant-droit de Nori Malo-Renault donnent leur autorisation pour une publication sous une licence compatible. Cette autorisation doit nous parvenir via cette procédure : COM:OTRS/fr. Si vous n'avez pas l'autorisation des ayant droit, il n'est pas possible de publier ces images ici. Cordialement, BrightRaven (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nori Malo-Renault
[edit]Prints by Nori Malo-Renault (died in 1953). No OTRS.
- File:Edgar Degas, Le Petit Café, interprété par Nori Malo-Renault, estampe en couleur.jpg
- File:Femme au Masque dédicace Aman-Jean; gravé Nori MR.jpg
- File:Portrait de W. E. Gladston par John Mclure Hamilton, e.f. par NMR.jpg
Chassipress (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: the reproduction of a 2D work does not entitle to a new copyright. Ruthven (msg) 12:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nori Malo-Renault
[edit]I re-nominate these 3 files, because the previous decision is wrong imho. These are not photographs or scans of artworks (which, in some cases, do not create new copyright), but engravings and etchings, which are derivative works (see Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Engravings) and generate new copyright. So these artworks will enter the PD in France in 2024.
- File:Edgar Degas, Le Petit Café, interprété par Nori Malo-Renault, estampe en couleur.jpg
- File:Femme au Masque dédicace Aman-Jean; gravé Nori MR.jpg
- File:Portrait de W. E. Gladston par John Mclure Hamilton, e.f. par NMR.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: BrightRaven is correct. The notion that "reproduction of a 2D work does not entitle to a new copyright" misses two related points: 1) it is the slavish reproduction of a two-dimensional work that does not create a new copyright and 2) the court decision that serves as the basis of this notion, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., found no copyright in the photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public-domain work of art, for lack of originality. Indeed, engravings are not photographic reproductions and are not generally slavish. As Nori Malo-Renault died in 1953, this would not be PD in France until 01.01.2024 (1953 + 70 + 1) and would not be PD in the US until 95 years after publication date (which has not been provided). --Эlcobbola talk 17:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nori Malo-Renault
[edit]Nori Malo-Renault died in 1953. No OTRS.
- File:"Marie-Annick" eau-forte de Nori Malo-Renault.jpg
- File:"Salomé" eau-forte couleur de Nori Malo-Renault.jpg
- File:Edgar Degas, Le Petit Café, interprété par Nori Malo-Renault, estampe en couleur.jpg
- File:Exlibris Legoffic par EMR.jpg
- File:Femme au Masque dédicace Aman-Jean; gravé Nori MR.jpg
- File:L' Ecrivain et le crabe e.f. de Nori Malo-Renault.jpg
- File:Portrait de W. E. Gladston par John Mclure Hamilton, e.f. par NMR.jpg
- File:Salomé, décor-couv, par Nori MR 1607.jpg
- File:Signature de Nori Malo-Renaul.jpg
Chassipress (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: As Nori Malo-Renault died in 1953, these would not be PD in France until 01.01.2024 (1953 + 70 + 1) and would not be PD in the US until 95 years after publication date (which has not been provided). --Эlcobbola talk 17:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nori Malo-Renault
[edit]Public domain only in 2024, as the author died in 1953.
- File:Broderie de Nori MR, femme au chapeau au jardin.jpg
- File:Broderie de Nori MR, Minerve.jpg
- File:Broderie Nori MR, Lévriers 1948.jpg
- File:Brodreie et lamé sur peau blanche de Nori MR (1925).jpg
- File:Fanny Charrin par Nori MR d'après Augusin.jpg
File:Hommage editeur à Nori MR pour le décor-couv Salomé.jpg- File:La Femme au Masque d' Aman-Jean, interpété par Nori MR.jpg
- File:Marie-Annick e-f originale Nori MR, version coul.jpg
File:Nori, pastel par Emile Malo-Renault.jpgFile:Portrait Nori Malo-Renault une rose à la main.jpgFile:Portrait Nori MR.jpg- File:Riquet à la houppe. couv bleu, Nori MR.jpg
- File:Salomé eau-forte de Nori Malo Renault signé.jpg
- File:Salomé, d'Oscar Wilde, décor-couv, par Nori MR.jpg
Yann (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- *File:Le Chateau des Merveilles 1893, décor-couv lamé par Nori MR.jpg also/aussi. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour,@Yann@Abzeronow,
- statut des droits d'auteur du créateur
- droits d'auteurs ne pouvant plus être enfreints
- ressort territorial
- pays avec 70 ans PMA ou plus court François Malo-Renault (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- En France, tous les droits d'auteur des auteurs décédés en 1953 expirent le 1er janvier 2024. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bonsoir @Yann, j'aimerai avoir l'article de loi qui s'applique précisément. François Malo-Renault (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Voyez Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France/fr et {{PD-France}} qui a des liens vers les textes de lois. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- L123-1 C.p.i.. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- == Article L123-1 ==
- @Abzeronow@Asclepias@Yann
- ====== Version en vigueur depuis le 01 juillet 1995 ======
- Modifié par Loi n°97-283 du 27 mars 1997 - art. 5 () JORF 28 mars 1997 en vigueur le 1er juillet 1995
- L'auteur jouit, sa vie durant, du droit exclusif d'exploiter son oeuvre sous quelque forme que ce soit et d'en tirer un profit pécuniaire.
- Au décès de l'auteur, ce droit persiste au bénéfice de ses ayants droit pendant l'année civile en cours et les soixante-dix années qui suivent.] François Malo-Renault (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oui, ce qui est important ici est pendant l'année civile en cours, c'est-à-dire jusqu'au 31 décembre. Yann (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bonsoir @Yann, j'aimerai avoir l'article de loi qui s'applique précisément. François Malo-Renault (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- En France, tous les droits d'auteur des auteurs décédés en 1953 expirent le 1er janvier 2024. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are different situations for different files. Conditional keep for File:Portrait Nori Malo-Renault une rose à la main.jpg and File:Portrait Nori MR.jpg : Both files were already kept in the previous Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by François Malo-Renault (the one started in May 2022 and closed in October 2022) per a closing rationale which seems implicitly along the lines of PD-old-assumed, although the status tags of the files were not adjusted to reflect that rationale. The files are still currently tagged as being under a copyright claimed to be owned by the uploader and licensed with CC BY-SA 4.0. It seems that no evidence is provided in support of that claim of copyright, and the identity of the photographer(s) is not mentioned by the uploader. The argument in favor of PD-old-assumed is not absolute, because the estimated date of creation is vague and it is not known if with sufficient research the photographer(s) could be identified. It would be helpful if the uploader told what research was done, if any. However, this may be a case where Commons could accept the files as PD-old-assumed without too much trouble. On the condition that the uploader withdraws his claim of copyright and replaces it with PD-old-assumed or another suitable tag, or that he proves his claim of copyright. Keep File:Nori, pastel par Emile Malo-Renault.jpg : The file was already kept also in the same previous DR of 2022. Work of artist Émile Malo-Renault who died in 1938. Work created before 1928. File marked as "kept by Yann" in October 2022 [30], [31]. It seems that the works of Émile Malo-Renault are currenly kept on Commons. The file was initially licensed with CC BY-SA 4.0, which may or may not be valid, depending on the status of the uploader in relation to the current ownership of the copyrigts of the works of Émile Malo-Renault. The status tag on the description page of the file was changed by another user, who removed the license and placed a PD-old tag, which was soon after replaced with different PD tags by the uploader. It is unclear if the uploader willingly withdrew his claim of copyright or ceased to offer the license. The PD status is of course correct at least in France and other countries with similar copyright expiration periods. But if the license is valid, it would be preferable to keep it also, for freeness and usability in countries where the work may still be in copyright. It would be nice if the uploader clarified that situation. Weak keep for File:Hommage editeur à Nori MR pour le décor-couv Salomé.jpg : It looks like something that may be uncopyrightable. It may not be very useful considering that the signatory is not identified but I suppose it can be kept if the uploader really wants it and the discussion concludes that it is not copyrighted. However, the uploader should withdraw his statement that there once was a copyright on it which was released with a CC0 dedication, for which there is no evidence, and should use a different PD status tag. Delete File:Broderie de Nori MR, femme au chapeau au jardin.jpg, File:Broderie de Nori MR, Minerve.jpg, File:Broderie Nori MR, Lévriers 1948.jpg (which may be a reupload of File:Les lévriers, Broderie (1918 ou 1948), signé Nori Malo-Renault (1871-1953).jpg, previously deleted in the DR closed on 5 October 2016, and/or a reupload of File:Broderie les lévriers 1948 Nori MR.jpg, previously deleted in the DR closed on 4 September 2017), File:Brodreie et lamé sur peau blanche de Nori MR (1925).jpg, File:Fanny Charrin par Nori MR d'après Augusin.jpg (which may be a reupload of File:Fanny Charrin, Nori MR after Augustin.jpg, previously deleted in the DR of 2022), File:La Femme au Masque d' Aman-Jean, interpété par Nori MR.jpg (which may be a reupload of File:Femme au Loup d' Aman Jan; Eau-forte et aquatinte (25x21cm) par Nori Malo-Renault.jpg, previously deleted in the DR closed on 25 September 2016), File:Marie-Annick e-f originale Nori MR, version coul.jpg, File:Riquet à la houppe. couv bleu, Nori MR.jpg, File:Salomé eau-forte de Nori Malo Renault signé.jpg, File:Salomé, d'Oscar Wilde, décor-couv, par Nori MR.jpg and File:Le Chateau des Merveilles 1893, décor-couv lamé par Nori MR.jpg : Works by Nori Malo-Renault, under copyright as previously mentioned in various deletion discussions. It seems that the legal situation of the uploader in relation to the copyright on the works of Nori Malo-Renault has not been clarified, although the question was mentioned in several previous discussions. By the use of CC licenses and CC dedications, the uploader has implied the existence of some form of authorization by whoever owns the copyrights. An OTRS communication from about 4 October 2016 is mentioned in passing in the DR closed on 5 October 2016. Does anyone know what it says? I guess it did not establish a legal standing or an authorization, considering that the files were deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)br>
BONJOUR; dans le droit français l'oeuvre de Nori Malo-Renault est das le domaine public depuis.le 29 janvier 2023. Voir le Code de la propriété intellectuelle : Chapitre III : Durée de la protection https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006278937--François Malo-Renault (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Non. Voir Article 21 : Au décès de l'auteur, ce droit persiste au bénéfice de ses ayants droit pendant l'année civile en cours et les cinquante années qui suivent. Les 50 ans ont été allongés à 70 ans en 1992, mais le reste est inchangé. Yann (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour @Yann,
- Donc je ne numérise plus d’œuvre de Nori Malo-Renault pour les télécharger à partir de maintenant sur https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nori_Malo-Renault?uselang=fret pour au moins 10 mois, également les 2 pages https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nori_Malo-Renault et https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nori_Malo-Renault vont se dégrader et je sais pas si je pourrait les restaurer un jour.... François Malo-Renault (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Donc encore 300 jours environ.... François Malo-Renault (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pour info j'ai noté deux fichiers en cc-zero qui sont d’ailleurs dans des collections muséalesː Musée de Bretagne et Musée des Beaux arts de Quimper..
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salom%C3%A9_eau-forte_de_Nori_Malo_Renault_sign%C3%A9.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marie-Annick_e-f_originale_Nori_MR,_version_coul.jpg
- Cordialement François Malo-Renault (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour, Par sa nature même, une déclaration CC0 de renonciation volontaire à ses droits d'auteur ne peut être émise que par le titulaire de ces droits d'auteur. Donc, à moins d'une preuve vérifiable que le titulaire des droits d'auteur sur ces oeuvres de Nori Malo-Renault a émis une déclaration CC0 de renonciation volontaire à ses droits d'auteur sur ces oeuvres, personne ne peut appliquer une étiquette CC0 à ces oeuvres. Si un photographe fait une reproduction photographique d'une oeuvre dont il n'est pas le titulaire des droits d'auteur, ce photographe ne peut émettre une déclaration CC0 de renoncement seulement qu'à l'égard de son propre travail de photographe, déclaration qui pourrait s'appliquer dans des juridictions où de telles reproductions photographiques pourraient générer des droits d'auteur distincts de ceux de l'oeuvre photographiée. Mais une déclaration CC0 par ce photographe ne peut pas s'appliquer à l'oeuvre photographiée. Pour qu'une reproduction photographique d'une oeuvre d'art puisse être hébergée sur Wikimedia Commons, il faut que l'oeuvre d'art photographiée soit libre (ou au moins que le titulaire des droits d'auteur sur l'oeuvre photographiée autorise explicitement que cette reproduction photographique particulière soit libre). On peut distinguer trois types de situations. A- Si l'oeuvre d'art photographiée est libre et que le photographe-téléverseur sur Comons ne prétend pas avoir de droits d'auteur sur le travail de reproduction photographique, alors l'image peut être hébergée sur Commons. B- Si l'oeuvre d'art photographiée est libre et que la reproduction photographique provient d'une source sans lien avec Wikimedia, alors l'image peut être hébergée sur Commons avec l'addition d'un bandeau d'avertissement dans les cas où il existe une possibilité que le travail de reproduction photographique ne soit pas libre dans certains pays. C- Si l'oeuvre photographiée n'est pas déjà elle-même libre, alors l'image de la reproduction photographique ne peut de toutes façons pas être hébergée sur Commons, quel que puisse être le statut du travail du photographe. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour,Asclepias@Yann
- Merci pour vos explications précises et détaillées, j’ hésite à utiliser une déclaration CC0 qui m’obligerait à prouver que je suis ayant droit. Les admin de Wikipédia n’ont pas remarqué la documentation et les fichiers que j'ai fourni pour Émile et Nori.(Cf user Daehan) Le plus simple c’est d’attendre, mois de 300 jours.
- Une question toutefois qu'elle est la différence pour le droit moral sur les œuvres (estampe, pastel ...) entrées dans le domaine public par (70 ans+1) ou CC-0 ? Et que permet le droit moral?
- Merci.
- user François Malo-Renault (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Les droits moraux sont décrits dans les lois des différents pays. Ainsi, leur nature et leur durée peut différer selon les pays. Par exemple, au Canada, ils sont décrits à l'article 14.1 de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur et ils ont la même durée que les droits patrimoniaux. En France, ils sont décrits aux articles L121-1 à L121-9 du C.p.i., certains de ces droits y subsistent après l'expiration des droits patrimoniaux et certains y sont inaliénables (art. L121-1). Par une déclaration CC0, le déclarant renonce à ses droits d'auteur, patrimoniaux et moraux, dans toute la mesure où cela ne contrevient pas aux lois applicables. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Merci beaucoup@Asclepias;
- Votre réponse est précise et bien documentées, les articles L121-1 à L121-9 sont clairs et donc mon choix est simple pas domaine public (avec CC-0), il suffit de donner du temps au temps (PD-France).
- PS je vais vérifier si je n'ai pas mis par ignorance quelques œuvre Émile Malo-Renault en CC0.
- Cordialement François Malo-Renault (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Merci @Asclepias; copie @Yann,
- Votre réponse sur les Droit Moraux en France est claire, articles L121-1 à L121-9, c'est ça l’important donc le choix est simple pas domaine public par CC-zéro, mais attendre le 31 décembre 2023 pour PD-France. Cordialement. François Malo-Renault (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Les droits moraux sont décrits dans les lois des différents pays. Ainsi, leur nature et leur durée peut différer selon les pays. Par exemple, au Canada, ils sont décrits à l'article 14.1 de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur et ils ont la même durée que les droits patrimoniaux. En France, ils sont décrits aux articles L121-1 à L121-9 du C.p.i., certains de ces droits y subsistent après l'expiration des droits patrimoniaux et certains y sont inaliénables (art. L121-1). Par une déclaration CC0, le déclarant renonce à ses droits d'auteur, patrimoniaux et moraux, dans toute la mesure où cela ne contrevient pas aux lois applicables. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour, Par sa nature même, une déclaration CC0 de renonciation volontaire à ses droits d'auteur ne peut être émise que par le titulaire de ces droits d'auteur. Donc, à moins d'une preuve vérifiable que le titulaire des droits d'auteur sur ces oeuvres de Nori Malo-Renault a émis une déclaration CC0 de renonciation volontaire à ses droits d'auteur sur ces oeuvres, personne ne peut appliquer une étiquette CC0 à ces oeuvres. Si un photographe fait une reproduction photographique d'une oeuvre dont il n'est pas le titulaire des droits d'auteur, ce photographe ne peut émettre une déclaration CC0 de renoncement seulement qu'à l'égard de son propre travail de photographe, déclaration qui pourrait s'appliquer dans des juridictions où de telles reproductions photographiques pourraient générer des droits d'auteur distincts de ceux de l'oeuvre photographiée. Mais une déclaration CC0 par ce photographe ne peut pas s'appliquer à l'oeuvre photographiée. Pour qu'une reproduction photographique d'une oeuvre d'art puisse être hébergée sur Wikimedia Commons, il faut que l'oeuvre d'art photographiée soit libre (ou au moins que le titulaire des droits d'auteur sur l'oeuvre photographiée autorise explicitement que cette reproduction photographique particulière soit libre). On peut distinguer trois types de situations. A- Si l'oeuvre d'art photographiée est libre et que le photographe-téléverseur sur Comons ne prétend pas avoir de droits d'auteur sur le travail de reproduction photographique, alors l'image peut être hébergée sur Commons. B- Si l'oeuvre d'art photographiée est libre et que la reproduction photographique provient d'une source sans lien avec Wikimedia, alors l'image peut être hébergée sur Commons avec l'addition d'un bandeau d'avertissement dans les cas où il existe une possibilité que le travail de reproduction photographique ne soit pas libre dans certains pays. C- Si l'oeuvre photographiée n'est pas déjà elle-même libre, alors l'image de la reproduction photographique ne peut de toutes façons pas être hébergée sur Commons, quel que puisse être le statut du travail du photographe. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: several, per nomination and Asclepias (one had already deleted by Krd as missing permission, probably because of an aborted VRT attempt). The nomination of 4 files had already been withdrawn. The files can be restored in 2024; apparently none of them has an URAA problem as the works are pre-1929. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted except for duplicate files and images stored as PDFs. —holly {chat} 05:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Risk of copyright violation: metadata comment states 'screenshot', suggesting that this is a still from a video. The image viewpoint suggests that this was not taken from the audience at a concert, more likely taken by an accredited photographer or videographer. Small image without camera metadata. Only upload by a new contributor. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
advertisement Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation. --JuTa 11:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
At the original uploader’s request Marvin Lou (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- maybe Keep, Mitch Garber exists. — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - not only this one but all three Mitch Garber images uploaded by this user, as they are small files without camera EXIF and uploaded as "own work" while most possibly they are not. --E4024 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I've uploaded incorrect image Forscher scs (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- No problem to keep; we can rename it. Still the grave of a fallen soldier. In scope. --E4024 (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Poor quality slide scanned at low res, better images in same category Sardaka (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors' and architects' copyright. Created after 1990. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Derivatives of works with unclear copyright status. Created after 1997. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Derivatives of works with unclear copyright status. Created after 1997. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
File:Могила Тура О.С. - заслуженного вчителя УРСР, громадсько-політичного діяча, історика, краєзнавця, м.Заліщики, вул.Стефаника,.jpg
[edit]Derivatives of works with unclear copyright status. Created after 1997. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm leaning towards delete since there's no FOP in Ukraine that legally allows commercial photography and commercial publications of photos of structural artworks, from buildings to memorials. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Not needed; was used once to demostrate an error being received which was actually a user error. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- speedy delete unnecessary deletion request, could have been time saving. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 09:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Low quality picture. Isn't used on any Wiki and is not good enough for use. The person is barely recongnizable Myloufa (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This photo from last December should probably be taken down, but DO NOT TAKE LAST NOVEMBER'S PHOTO FROM THE BOOK FESTIVAL DOWN LIKE CRAZY. Many tags for attempting to take down the photo have been added by you like crazy, but most of them have survived instead of being taken down like crazy. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Person not recognizable. Low quality. Not of any interest. --Webfil (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Picture of really low quality. Not suitable for any use on Wikipedia. The person is barely recognizable. Myloufa (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The photo from last December should probably be taken down, but DO NOT TAKE THIS DOWN LIKE CRAZY. Many tags for attempting to take down the photo have been added by you like crazy, but most of them have survived instead of being taken down like crazy. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Webfil (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep In the midst of CAro Caron's photo since taken down like crazy as of today, I would hope to continue retaining this one like most other photos which would not be taken down like crazy as Myloufa puts tags like crazy to take the low-quality photo down. --- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
this picture is my own work and i would like to be taken out of wikicommon since it is no longer be used. I realized that i dont want my personal picture to be published on internet therefore i am requesting you to delete it. thanks Aadilashahid94 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Person not recognizable; image is about female footwear. --E4024 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted images; there is no fair use on Commons Mosbatho (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Please provide verifiable references. The subject is for sale to anyone who wants to purchase. After purchase, the subject may be photographed by the buyer. Thank you for your concern. (Mini4WD (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Comment Mini4WD, you may read Commons:Fair use and Commons:Derivative works. There, you can learn that photographs of copyrighted work ist basically not your own work but a copyright violation. --Mosbatho (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This User:Mosbatho has violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines, with verifiable proof, while exhibiting troll-like behavior, with verifiable proof, such as having a recently created account of a month and copying and pasting multiple Deletion Requests in row, on the same day, on the same article, WITHOUT ANY VERIFIABLE RATIONALE and WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF PRIOR DISCUSSION with the original user that posted the images. That's what trolls do.
This User:Mosbatho has continually (5 times) deleted discussion words of another user while editing another user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said. Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
By now, I would not be surprised if this User:Mosbatho has deleted the entire discussion on their page.
Users should not be allowed to waste others' time by going on a Deletion Request spree... especially newly created accounts.
Should someone more intelligent, more mature, more expert, with better manners request additional proof of copyright ownership, it shall be provided.
I will not waste my time to provide addtional proof to this immature, amateur who exhibits troll-like behavior.
Waste of time. Who will waste your time, now?
(Mini4WD (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC))
Mini4WD, please be not offensive and please stop this slander.
Additional explanation: The picture uploaded by Mini4WD shows the packaging of a toy car. This image of the toy car was created by the manufacturer of this toy car and this manufacturer has the copyright on this color image of the toy car shown on this packaging. So it is not allowed to photograph this color drawing 1:1 and publish it here as "own work" with a free CC license. You can read about this on Commons:Fair use and Commons:Derivative works. By now, it is a copyright violation. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
To: Wikipedia Administrator,
Regardless of the outcome of your decision on the matter, I have a few questions, if you please.
Q1: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user going on a "copy & paste" spree of Deletion Requests that do NOT contain the decorum that is stated on the Commons:Deletion requests article.
In that article it is stated, "Please give reasons for your opinion, preferably based on your knowledge of: any binding copyright law; the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, for example Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope or Commons:Photographs of identifiable people; or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on."
Q2: Does Wikipedia Commons decorum require a Deletion Request Nominator to follow the above-stated guideline including reasons, reasons based on knowledge, verifiable reference to binding copyright law, statement of applicability of any Commons policies, or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on?
Q3: Understanding the Uploader bears the burden of providing appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the file is in the public domain or that the original copyright owner has released it under a suitable license, Commons policy goes on to state that, typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified. I am able to specify that the source of the file is from my own camera.
Q4: I accept your decision on the matter, however, I would like to ask if the Commons policy stated, below, applies or not?
"A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States."
Q5: What remedy does a user like myself have, against another user, in the instance of that other user continually (5 times) deleting discussion words of another user while editing the other user's own words to make it appear that the other user said something other than what they really said? Proof is on this User:Mosbatho Talk page.
Q6: If all else disqualifies this image, does this exerpt from the Commons policy apply, since the manufacturer is located in Japan?
"The question, then, is whether toys are to be treated as vehicles and furniture: exempt from copyright protection on the basis of being utilitarian objects. Indeed, some countries, such as Japan,[10] generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright."
Thank you, again. (Mini4WD (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC))
- Delete: COM:PACKAGING. --Achim (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
this picture is my own work and i would like to be taken out of wikicommon since it is no longer be used. I realized that i dont want my personal picture to be published on internet therefore i am requesting you to delete it. thanks Aadilashahid94 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep Person not recognizable; image is about female clothing. If she is too disturbed "it may be deleted". --E4024 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Now she has uploaded a larger version of the image that she wanted to be deleted: File:Anklet on female feet 2.png. Therefore we do not need this file any more and I change my opinion towards delete. --E4024 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The smaller version is better, but larger is... larger. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: This file seems better than /2.png. Person is also not recongizable in the photo and thus shouldn't pose any risk to anyone. --Minoraxtalk 00:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The subject of this photograph is not happy about it. I am the original uploader. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept - File in use; courtesy deletion is not possible. --E4024 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
this picture is my own work and i would like to be taken out of wikicommon since it is no longer be used. I realized that i dont want my personal picture to be published on internet therefore i am requesting you to delete it. thanks Aadilashahid94 (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Person not recognizable; image is about female footwear. --E4024 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Per E4024. Also this image is currently used on two wikis, so a courtesy deletion can't be done. pandakekok9 03:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
It is my image. 104.249.229.71 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept - Not a valid reason for deletion. --E4024 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither CC-BY-SA, nor public domain. The watermark reads "Todos os direitos reservados" ("All rights reserved") Py4nf (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. Please have a look at other files uploaded by this user, they seem to be alike. E4024 (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from art. Should be blanked/cropped to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I no longer wish to have this image (of my creation) hosted on the wikimedia commons MysteriousWisdomTurtle (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: screenshot from an Excel macro CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not to be deleted: used by WikiUniversity.--CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No source given for the photos, clearly not own photo as the first one in the grid is this photo by a totally different user. https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:Sivas_View.jpg 92.249.202.49 12:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to sign in, this is user Teemeah (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dunkleosteus77 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No FOP in Italy Notafly (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Educational institution. No photography resrictions. Didactic display.Please reconsider Notafly (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Even if educational, the model must be in the public domain or you have to get permission from the artist for you to publicly release a picture of it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I will try for that but please also consider Notafly (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC) {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Failed draft and not an own work. E4024 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- oppose RIS result shows the file is available in blog, maybe taken from commons itself. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 09:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- André Spitz died in 1977. Copyright violation. 86.249.253.157 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: one of the artists is not dead long enough having died in 1977. Undelete in 2048. Ww2censor (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/oil painting lccn incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2017"
[edit]Modern art, no FOP in the US, needs permission from artist
- File:Oil painting "Nightingale" at the San Francisco Federal Building, San Francisco, California LCCN2010719816.tif
- File:Untitled painting, interior lobby, Molio Building, New York, New York LCCN2010720131.tif
- File:Painting "The Coming of Rain" at Yeleta Border Station, El Paso, Texas LCCN2010720354.tif
- File:Painting "A Day in El Paso del Norte" at R.C. White Federal Building, El Paso, Texas LCCN2010720358.tif
- File:Painting "A Day in El Paso del Norte" at R.C. White Federal Building, El Paso, Texas LCCN2010720356.tif
Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Should the painting have been commissioned with Federal monies, then they may be claimed to be federal works. To make the case there would have to be published statements about it that we could refer to. --Fæ (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the phils. Bldg is 2015 completed Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete see my input at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Discovery Primea 1.jpg. Once FOP is introduced, hopefully with the great help of a Wikimedia-IPOPHL dialogue soon, this can be undeleted safely. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the phils. Bldg is 2015 completed Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. Their official website [32] indicates Kenzo Tange as its architect, though the opening date is 10 years (2015) after his death as indicated on English Wikipedia (2005). However, the website states his legacy is continued by his son Paul Tange through his Tokyo-based firm Tange. Assuming the younger Tange is the leading architect of this hotel together with his team at Tange, the building almost-certainly fails COM:FOP Philippines (which per consensus stated that pre-August 1951 completed buildings are OK for Commons). Undeletion is possible, once FOP is introduced in the Philippines just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Nevertheless, IPOPHL has indicated in a November 2020 email reply to Higad Rail Fan that they are open for a dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation with regards to FOP matter. When will this dialogue (to be initiated by WMF according to the email-reply) occur is yet to be seen, but hopefully sooner than later. Despite this, per COM:PCP (see this 2017 deletion request to a Dubai building) deletion first is the right way, in respect of the architects' and/or sculptors' copyrights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the phils. Bldg was completed in 2000 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The so-called no FoP in the Philippines is just based on guesses and very literal reading of our copyright law. The lack of mention of FoP in the Philippines, plus the lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent copyright restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage (people are free to photographs such subjects here). And take note, the longstanding no FoP in the Philippines claim is being dealt with at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, so IMO no deletions should be made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawing my vote keep. I concede that there is no Commons-acceptable FoP in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- After a 2-month long discussion, no FOP still. Delete sadly as a building designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP and GF & Partners Architects, and completed in 2000. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. To the admins: for the meantime, please move this to enwiki with warning tag "FoP-USonly" as this is a heavily-used file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the phils. Bldg was completed in 2017 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the phils. Bldg was completed in 1999 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly, as a building designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP - New York + W.V. Coscolluela & Associates, and completed in 2000 (not 1999 as the nominator claims). Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Temporarily, to all admins, please move this file to enwiki where it is heavily used. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in phils. Phil copyright law prohibits reuse of photos of copyrightwd bldgs and sculptures other than noncommercial amd fair use. What is not included in the law means it is not ok. Bldg is completed in 2013. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_for_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. Still, no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Nevertheless, IPOPHL has indicated in a November 2020 email reply to Higad Rail Fan that they are open for a dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation with regards to FOP matter. When will this dialogue (to be initiated by WMF according to the email-reply) occur is yet to be seen, but hopefully sooner than later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in phils. Phil copyright law prohibits reuse of photos of copyrightwd bldgs and sculptures other than noncommercial amd fair use. What is not included in the law means it is not ok. Bldg is completed in 2013. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_for_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. Still, no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Nevertheless, IPOPHL has indicated in a November 2020 email reply to Higad Rail Fan that they are open for a dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation with regards to FOP matter. When will this dialogue (to be initiated by WMF according to the email-reply) occur is yet to be seen, but hopefully sooner than later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama building is from 1976 or post 1972 so it is assumed NOT OK. Phil copyrights law doesnt allow reuse of photos of copyrighted bldgs and culptures other then fair use and non commercial use. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. According to KMC real estate firm's website, this was completed in 1976. Still fails the sole requirement of the FOP Philippines (pre-August 1951 Philippine buildings are OK, for post-1951 buildings the architect must have been dead for not less than 50 years). Undelete when full amd concrete FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. The GMA Bldg is designed by roger villarosa who is probably still alive - https://bluprint.onemega.com/work-with-honor-rogelio-villarosa/ an architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Take note: the no FoP in the Philippines matter was recently raised (anew) at the Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright, in light with the recent DR's made by this new user targeting various Philippine buildings and sculptures. I hereby request admins to put this and other DR's on hold until this matter has settled. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
::I'd now say
Withdrawing my vote keep. I concede that there is no Commons-acceptable FoP in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep. The so-called no FoP in the Philippines is just based on guesses and very literal reading of our copyright law. The lack of mention of FoP in the Philippines, plus the lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent copyright restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage (people are free to photographs such subjects here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. According to Lakbay sa Lakan, this was a 2000 architecture by Roger Villarosa. Cannot be considered incidental as the file is meant for the building, and if using de mininis standard, cropping will effectively eliminate its usability. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Nevertheless, IPOPHL has indicated in a November 2020 email reply to Higad Rail Fan that they are open for a dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation with regards to FOP matter. When will this dialogue (to be initiated by WMF according to the email-reply) occur is yet to be seen, but hopefully sooner than later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. The GMA Bldg is designed by roger villarosa who is probably still alive - https://bluprint.onemega.com/work-with-honor-rogelio-villarosa/ an architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Take note: the no FoP in the Philippines matter was recently raised (anew) at the Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright, in light with the recent DR's made by this new user targeting various Philippine buildings and sculptures. I hereby request admins to put this and other DR's on hold until this matter has settled. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
::I'd now say
Withdrawing my vote keep. I concede that there is no Commons-acceptable FoP in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep. The so-called no FoP in the Philippines is just based on guesses and very literal reading of our copyright law. The lack of mention of FoP in the Philippines, plus the lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent copyright restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage (people are free to photographs such subjects here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. According to Lakbay sa Lakan, this was a 2000 architecture by Roger Villarosa. Still, no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Nevertheless, IPOPHL has indicated in a November 2020 email reply to Higad Rail Fan that they are open for a dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation with regards to FOP matter. When will this dialogue (to be initiated by WMF according to the email-reply) occur is yet to be seen, but hopefully sooner than later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sad to say, Delete until freedom of panorama is finally introduced in our country. Still no FOP for majority of architectural and artistic (sculptures etc.) works in the Philippines, even after this two-month long discussion of Sept.–Nov.. While there may be a potential for a dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia Foundation reps, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (as mentioned at this 2017 deletion request to a Dubai building, in a kingdom that has no total FOP), "deletion first is the right approach", even during active forums, as Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the work's country of origin (the Philippines for this case) does not. File/s can be undeleted once FOP exists or is introduced here—perhaps via COM:UNDEL or a COM:Village pump/COM:Administrators' noticeboard motion or announcement just like the cases of images of Armenian and Belgian architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in Armenia in 2013 and Belgium in 2016. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sad to say, Delete until freedom of panorama is finally introduced in our country. Still no FOP for majority of architectural and artistic (sculptures etc.) works in the Philippines, even after this two-month long discussion of Sept.–Nov.. While there may be a potential for a dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia Foundation reps, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (as mentioned at this 2017 deletion request to a Dubai building, in a kingdom that has no total FOP), "deletion first is the right approach", even during active forums, as Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the work's country of origin (the Philippines for this case) does not. File/s can be undeleted once FOP exists or is introduced here—perhaps via COM:UNDEL or a COM:Village pump/COM:Administrators' noticeboard motion or announcement just like the cases of images of Armenian and Belgian architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in Armenia in 2013 and Belgium in 2016. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture BSA Twin towers a joint work of a company, completed in 2011 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
:
Withdrawing my vote keep. I concede that there is no Commons-acceptable FoP in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep. The so-called no FoP in the Philippines is just based on guesses and very literal reading of our copyright law. The lack of mention of FoP in the Philippines, plus the lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent copyright restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage (people are free to photographs such subjects here). And take note, the longstanding no FoP in the Philippines claim is being dealt with at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, so IMO no deletions should be made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sad to say, until freedom of panorama is finally introduced in our country, the file needs to be deleted. Still no FOP for majority of architectural and artistic (sculptures etc.) works in the Philippines, even after this two-month long discussion of Sept.–Nov.. While there may be a potential for a dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia Foundation reps, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (as mentioned at this 2017 deletion request to a Dubai building, in a kingdom that has no total FOP), "deletion first is the right approach", even during active forums, as Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the work's country of origin (the Philippines for this case) does not. File/s can be undeleted once FOP exists or is introduced here—perhaps via COM:UNDEL or a COM:Village pump/COM:Administrators' noticeboard motion or announcement just like the cases of images of Armenian and Belgian architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in Armenia in 2013 and Belgium in 2016. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Freedom of panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. Megamall maga fashion hall completed in 2014 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Mrcl lxmna extended content
|
|---|
|
To counter "plainness" argument in phil mall bldgs is one deletion req i recently digested and researched. At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Bank_of_the_Philippine_Islands, your moderator jim once said: - """""Exactly half of the 122 countries that we have information on (including the Philippines) do not have any FOP. It is important to remember that FOP is an exception to ordinary copyright which prohibits the reproduction in any form of copyrighted works, so the absense of any provision for FOP cannot be unclear -- it simply isn't there. As for the"plainness" argument, The Philippine law says: "172.1 Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose." That is similar to the law in other countries.""""" Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC) |
- This building was built in 2014 per this Philippine Star article, and designed by three architectural firms (concept design) Arquitectonica, CAZA, and Edge. Delete sadly. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. Mainky shows the megafashion hall which completed in 2014 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The so-called no FoP in the Philippines is just based on guesses and very literal reading of our copyright law. The lack of mention of FoP in the Philippines, plus the lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent copyright restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage (people are free to photographs such subjects here). And take note, the longstanding no FoP in the Philippines claim is being dealt with at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, so IMO no deletions should be made. My response is mirrored from my responses of other DR's that are pending as of this writing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- New Comment (mirrored from my comment on another pending Philippine FOP case) the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query (the latest thread in that discussion forum that has started from September this year) reached a conclusion that none of the "near-FOP" limitations enumerated at Section 184 could be applied. While elcobbola mentioned the clause (j): "Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or, that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title." According to Clindberg it sounds like "you own a physical copy of an already-published work, you're allowed to publicly display it, but not make further copies." Clause (d) in the same section is only applicable to "reporting of current events," and clause (e) is limited to "teaching purposes," both are of fair use-type and not free enough for Commons (take note, Commons:Fair use insists Commons does not accept fair use licensing). So sadly, there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines (the current position of Commons:FOP Philippines). A potential meeting or dialogue between the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) and the Wikimedia Foundation (with freedom of panorama as the principal agenda, as based on IPOPHL's reply to the latest email sent by Higad Rail Fan) might help in introducing freedom of panorama in the Philippines, through an amendment to Republic Act No. 8293 (hopefully). When will both this meeting/dialogue and amendment happen, I cannot say yet however. I will also leave the final decision to admins in closing this and all other pending nominations at Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Extended content by nominator
|
|---|
|
To counter "plainness" argument in phil mall bldgs is one deletion req i recently digested and researched. At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Bank_of_the_Philippine_Islands, your moderator jim once said: - """""Exactly half of the 122 countries that we have information on (including the Philippines) do not have any FOP. It is important to remember that FOP is an exception to ordinary copyright which prohibits the reproduction in any form of copyrighted works, so the absense of any provision for FOP cannot be unclear -- it simply isn't there. As for the"plainness" argument, The Philippine law says: "172.1 Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose." That is similar to the law in other countries.""""" And jwilz12344 your rationale is twisted. The fact that theres no freedom of pano in a country means that it is simply nonexistent. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC) |
- My final poll is Delete, see also my input at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mega Fashion Hall of SM Megamall2.jpg. Undelete when FOP is introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. Building is 1991 completed Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unfortunately. Per w:Shangri-La Plaza this was opened on November 21, 1991. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in the Philipines Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Okay this is too new to be free. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Nevertheless, IPOPHL has indicated in a November 2020 email reply to Higad Rail Fan that they are open for a dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation with regards to FOP matter. When will this dialogue (to be initiated by WMF according to the email-reply) occur is yet to be seen, but hopefully sooner than later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
See copyright disclaimer in metadata.
- "Copyright 2015 Matthew Shaw. Not for use by architects, interior designers or other hotel suppliers without permission from Matthew Shaw Photography (www.matthewshaw.co.uk) Editorial use only when hotel is referred to on same page and should be credited to: "matthewshaw.co.uk""
- "Copyright 2015 Matthew Shaw. See licence supplied with this image for full terms & conditions. Copy available at: www.matthewshaw.co.uk/copyright.html Not for use by architects, interior designers or other hotel suppliers without permission from Matthew Shaw"
Bk rhoe (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. This statue or a byproduct of sculpture art is from 2008.
- File:64-divine-mercy-shrine-5.jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Christ - 1.JPG
- File:Divine Mercy Christ - 2.JPG
- File:Divine Mercy Christ Statue, El Salvador City.jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Christ Statue.JPG
- File:Divine Mercy Christ Statue.jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Hills, 200 steps to the top..jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Shrine (cropped).jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Shrine - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Shrine - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Shrine - panoramio (3).jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Shrine - panoramio (4).jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Shrine - panoramio.jpg
- File:Divine Mercy Shrine El Salvador Mis. Or.JPG
- File:Divine Mercy Shrine.JPG
- File:Johnregaladophotography2.jpg
- File:Johnregaladophotography3.jpg
- File:Phils El Salvador City Divine Mercy Shrine.JPG
- File:The Divine Mercy of El Salvador.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Additional proof is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felino_Palafox and confirms that Felino Palafox who is still alive is involved in this artistic work.
Comment The creator is not Felino "Jun" Palafox per se, but his firm together with two more people. Based on this article by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the statue began in 2003 and "completed in three years" (2005 or 2006?). It was a combined effort of Divine Mercy Foundation of Mindanao (Phils.) Inc. together with Falafox Associates, Inc. and two other people, sculptor Nicanor Reyes and architect Tara Rico. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except File:Divine Mercy Hills, 200 steps to the top..jpg per de minimis. ƏXPLICIT 01:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Skyscraper page.com indicates the building (Equitable Bank Tower along Paseo de Roxas in Makati City) was completed in 2001 by Pimentel Rodriguez Simbulan & Partners. Sadly Delete: no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- No immediate info on its architecture and completion found on Google, mostly I saw booking reservations and advertising sites. However, the building looks recent. There's no way that such types of buildings are seen in Ortigas Center during 1990s, as far as I know about throwback photos to the 1990s. Delete per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. The title is a lie, it shows the buildings and not only the st. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
SPEEDY. this photo was part of my query for third-party opinion at enwiki (w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/December#Validity and legitimacy of Do not move to commons tag at File:Avenida rizal manila.jpg and File:Makati ayala avenue.jpg), in which Finnusertop or Finnusertop at work said that such Philippine street views pass Commons:De minimis, or incidental inclusion of potentially copyrighted structures on road sceneries and cityscapes. Automatically all road sceneries and street views are DM. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Keep- This file was alraedy on Commons at the time of that discussion and was not subject to any action so I did not say anything specific about it. It is certainly the case that all de minimis cases need to considerd separately and a blanket rule based on subject matter is not possible. I can see the case that this image is not de minimis because the buildings, especially the one in the middle, feature so prominently. The title is "Meralco Avenue" but the positioning and framing of the building(s) does not seem incidential. Finnusertop (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: maybe. But as of today, I might request to put all DR discussions on our (Pinoy Wikipedians') photos on hold pending a "breathtaking" evidence put forward by Exec8 at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright (using 2005 and 2016 Supreme Court rulings). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Setting DM criterium aside, does the subject depicted pass low COM:TOO? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Slash my defense statements. Withdrawing my defense. I admit that however I try to defend Philippine building, sculpture, and other 3D artwork photos, the fact that our copyright law still has no freedom of panorama and only allows broadcasting and fair use-type acts still "invalidates" my defense. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The intellectual property code of the phils or ra 8293 doesnt have the concept of de minimis or so callef incidental inclusions. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. This is edsa shrine. A request to eliminate other shrine photos is underway Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unfortunately. Per w:EDSA Shrine this was made by Virginia Ty-Navarro who seems to be alive (though some sources like the Manila Times use "late", perhaps she died recently, but enwiki article still treats her as a living sculptor). Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. Waht is mainly shown is the 2014 magafashion hall Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The so-called no FoP in the Philippines is just based on guesses and very literal reading of our copyright law. The lack of mention of FoP in the Philippines, plus the lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent copyright restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage (people are free to photographs such subjects here). And take note, the longstanding no FoP in the Philippines claim is being dealt with at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, so IMO no deletions should be made. My response is mirrored from my responses of other DR's that are pending as of this writing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawing my vote keep. I concede that there is no Commons-acceptable FoP in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- My final poll is Delete, see also my input at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mega Fashion Hall of SM Megamall2.jpg. It indeed shows the 2014-era Mega Fashion Mall. No FOP still, even after the 2-month long discussion at CRT/Philippines talk page. Undelete when FOP is introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
This image seems to de a derivative work. It seems that the television screen has been photographed. Mosbatho (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama building looks recent or post 1972 so it is assumed NOT OK. Phil copyrights law doesnt allow reuse of photos of copyrighted bldgs and culptures other then fair use and non commercial use. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sad to say, Delete until freedom of panorama finally exists in our country. An online source ([33]) states this was built in 2003. Still no FOP for majority of architectural and artistic (sculptures etc.) works in the Philippines, even after this two-month long discussion Sept.–Nov.. While there may be a potential for a dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia Foundation reps, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (as mentioned at this 2017-era UAE FOP-related deletion request targetting a Dubai building), "deletion first is the right approach", even during discussions or dialogues, as Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the work's country of origin (the Philippines for this case) does not. File can be undeleted (perhaps via COM:UNDEL or a COM:Village pump/COM:Administrators' noticeboard motion or announcement just like the cases of Belgian and Armenian architecture and artistic works) once FOP exists or is implemented here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
SPEEDY Keep this certainly passes low COM:TOO, as certified by King of Hearts at both Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sm megamall.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smmarilaojf.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Your claim of low TOO is irrational. Countering the plainness arguments is one deletion req i recently digested and researched. At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Bank_of_the_Philippine_Islands, your moderator jim once said: - """""Exactly half of the 122 countries that we have information on (including the Philippines) do not have any FOP. It is important to remember that FOP is an exception to ordinary copyright which prohibits the reproduction in any form of copyrighted works, so the absense of any provision for FOP cannot be unclear -- it simply isn't there. As for the"plainness" argument, The Philippine law says:
"172.1 Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose."
That is similar to the law in other countries."""""
The mall bldgs you mentioned should also enjoy copyright protection as said by ra8293. "Irrespect8ve of their mode or form of expression."
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Withdrawing my keep vote for my image. Sad to say, Delete until freedom of panorama finally exists in our country. The Republic Act No. 8293 (IP Code of the Philippines) seem to not incorporate an explicit concept on threshold of originality, and 588 Shopping Mall seems an original design on its own, made unique by the 588 logo and the façade (the structure is familiar to me as I went there for some "shopping" last year). Still no FOP for majority of architectural and artistic (sculptures etc.) works in the Philippines, even after this two-month long discussion Sept.–Nov.. While there may be a potential for a dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia Foundation reps, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (as mentioned at this 2017-era UAE FOP-related deletion request targetting a Dubai building), "deletion first is the right approach", even during discussions, as Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the work's country of origin (the Philippines for this case) does not. File can be undeleted (perhaps via COM:UNDEL or via a COM:Village pump/COM:Administrators' noticeboard motion or announcement just like the case of images of Belgian and Armenian architecture and artistic works) once FOP exists or is implemented here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: There are also several images showing the façade at Category:588 Shopping Mall. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. Completion date is 2014 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- SPEEDY Keep this church has been in existence in Pulilan since 1700s. So automatically PD. The new artwork here is incidental and fulfills Commons:DM. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per JWilz12345. ƏXPLICIT 13:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Zuellig Building
[edit]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama building is completed in 2013 or post 1972 so it is assumed NOT OK. Phil copyrights law doesnt allow reuse of photos of copyrighted bldgs and culptures other then fair use and non commercial use.
- File:08983jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building One Roxas Triangle Paseo de Roxas Gil Puyat Makati Avenuesfvf 14.jpg
- File:08983jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building One Roxas Triangle Paseo de Roxas Gil Puyat Makati Avenuesfvf 22.jpg
- File:08983jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building One Roxas Triangle Paseo de Roxas Gil Puyat Makati Avenuesfvf 36.jpg
- File:08983jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building One Roxas Triangle Paseo de Roxas Gil Puyat Makati Avenuesfvf 37.jpg
- File:08983jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building One Roxas Triangle Paseo de Roxas Gil Puyat Makati Avenuesfvf 48.jpg
- File:08983jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building One Roxas Triangle Paseo de Roxas Gil Puyat Makati Avenuesfvf 49.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 01.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 02.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 03.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 04.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 05.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 06.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 07.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 08.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 09.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 10.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 11.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 12.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 13.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 14.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 15.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 16.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 17.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 22.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 23.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 26.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 39.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 40.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 41.jpg
- File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 48.jpg
- File:09080jfUrdaneta Bel-Air Zuellig Building BDO Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 06.jpg
- File:09080jfUrdaneta Bel-Air Zuellig Building BDO Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 08.jpg
- File:09080jfUrdaneta Bel-Air Zuellig Building BDO Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 09.jpg
- File:09080jfUrdaneta Bel-Air Zuellig Building BDO Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 12.jpg
- File:09080jfUrdaneta Bel-Air Zuellig Building BDO Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 13.jpg
- File:09080jfUrdaneta Bel-Air Zuellig Building BDO Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 14.jpg
- File:09080jfUrdaneta Bel-Air Zuellig Building BDO Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 15.jpg
- File:09080jfUrdaneta Bel-Air Zuellig Building BDO Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 48.jpg
- File:Zuellig Building.jpg
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and Keep see my reasoning below. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos
[edit]- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would say either put this DR on hold or Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
- In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
- FOP matter update
- Rejoinder
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
|---|
* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
|
I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all except: Keep File:08983jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building One Roxas Triangle Paseo de Roxas Gil Puyat Makati Avenuesfvf 36.jpg as a plain scenery (no focus on Zuellig Building) and Weak keep for the two images that only show close-up of the part of the structure — File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 13.jpg and File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 14.jpg. For most, unfortunately, these unambiguously focus on the building, and while some can be said as to only focus a specific part, I don't know if the precautionary principle will apply as these show large portions of parts of the building. After extensive discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines, the status quo prevailed: there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippine copyright law. Maybe an amendment to the IP Code of the Philippines will change things, but the proposed amendment still didn't contain any FOP provision, and per a decision at this UAE FOP-related deletion request "deletion first is the right approach in accordance with Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle": Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the work's country of origin (the Philippines) does not. And for future reference, according to enwiki the architect is "Skidmore, Owings and Merrill; W.V. Coscoluella & Associates". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except three. ƏXPLICIT 12:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rizal Monument, Naga City
[edit]No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture
- File:Rizal Monument in Naga City 2.jpg
- File:Rizal Monument in Naga City 3.jpg
- File:Rizal Monument in Naga City 4.jpg
- File:Rizal Monument in Naga City.jpg
- File:The Plaza Rizal.jpg
- File:The Rizal Monument in Naga City, Camarines Sur.JPG
- File:The Rizal Park.jpg
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mrcl lxmna: : Do you have any reliable information of when was the monument established? ~Thank you! Carlojoseph14 (talk)
- @Carlojoseph14: the no FoP in the Philippines matter was recently raised (anew) at the Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright, in light with the recent DR's made by this newly-registered user targeting various Philippine buildings and sculptures. I hereby request admins to put this and other DR's on hold until this matter has concluded meaningfully. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- new Comment (mirrored from my comment on another pending Philippine FOP case) the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query (the latest thread in that discussion forum that has started from September this year) reached a conclusion that none of the "near-FOP" limitations enumerated at Section 184 could be applied. While elcobbola mentioned the clause (j): "Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or, that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title." According to Clindberg it sounds like "you own a physical copy of an already-published work, you're allowed to publicly display it, but not make further copies." Clause (d) in the same section is only applicable to "reporting of current events," and clause (e) is limited to "teaching purposes," both are of fair use-type and not free enough for Commons (take note, Commons:Fair use insists Commons does not accept fair use licensing). So sadly, there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines (the current position of Commons:FOP Philippines). A potential meeting or dialogue between the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) and the Wikimedia Foundation (with freedom of panorama as the principal agenda, as based on IPOPHL's reply to the latest email sent by Higad Rail Fan) might help in introducing freedom of panorama in the Philippines, through an amendment to Republic Act No. 8293 (hopefully). When will both this meeting/dialogue and amendment happen, I cannot say yet however. I will also leave the final decision to admins in closing this and all other pending nominations at Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [34]. Yann (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in phils. Phil copyright law prohibits reuse of photos of copyrightwd bldgs and sculptures other than noncommercial amd fair use. What is not included in the law means it is not ok. Bldg is completed in 2013. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete sadly. Interior architecture, no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Nevertheless, IPOPHL has indicated in a November 2020 email reply to Higad Rail Fan that they are open for a dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation with regards to FOP matter. When will this dialogue (to be initiated by WMF according to the email-reply) occur is yet to be seen, but hopefully sooner than later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine 1
[edit]No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. The artist died in 1989, so this work will not be in the public domain until 2039.
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 09.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 10.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 11.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 12.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 13.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 15.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 16.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 21.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 22.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 23.jpg
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 24.jpg
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 01.JPG
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 02.JPG
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 03.JPG
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 04.JPG
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 05.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 01.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 02.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 03.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 04.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 05.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 06.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 07.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 08.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 09.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 10.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 11.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 12.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 13.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 14.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 15.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 16.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 18.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 19.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 20.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 21.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 23.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 28.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 29.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 31.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 32.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 33.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 34.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 35.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 37.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 40.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 41.JPG
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 14.JPG
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 22.JPG
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 25.JPG
- File:Quezon City Memorial Circle.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 02.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 03.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 04.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 05.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 06.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 07.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 08.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 09.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 10.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 11.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 12.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle.jpg
- File:Quezon Memorial Shrine by Shanax1997.jpg
Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The architect was an employee of the government and the shrine is owned and maintained by the government. As such the shrine is considered a work of the government and according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, no copyright subsists in works of the government. This also applies to when the Philippine government was part of the United States during the time the shrine was designed. —seav (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Seav: Oh, if that's the case, could someone please undelete these Deletion requests/Files in Category: Quezon Memorial. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the messages; when I took these pictures I asked permission from the officers, and I was told that taking photos of these are allowed, especially they appear to be for public learning; I respectfully remain very sincerely yours Judgefloro 06:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- May I suggest a Written-Formal Query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines to Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago
- Considering that a New Director has been appointed replacing Director Blancaflor (who, I presume did not categorically respond on my or your editors' query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines) it is but just and fitting that Senior editors or sysops of Wikimedia Commons formally submit a written Query on the matter, to settle once and for all whether photos should be deleted or not based on the present rules of Commons on the matter. Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines Very sincerely Judgefloro 09:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Considering that a New Director has been appointed replacing Director Blancaflor (who, I presume did not categorically respond on my or your editors' query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines) it is but just and fitting that Rulings on these Deletion of images entries be held in abeyance for the sake of Wisdom of future Users and global learners of Wikimedia Commons; today, I formally submitted a written Query on the matter, to settle once and for all whether photos should be deleted or not based on the present rules of Commons on the matter. Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
- Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts Very sincerely yours, Judgefloro 08:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Considering that a New Director has been appointed replacing Director Blancaflor (who, I presume did not categorically respond on my or your editors' query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines) it is but just and fitting that Rulings on these Deletion of images entries be held in abeyance for the sake of Wisdom of future Users and global learners of Wikimedia Commons; today, I formally submitted a written Query on the matter, to settle once and for all whether photos should be deleted or not based on the present rules of Commons on the matter. Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
- Oppose The FOP issue is a gray area of Philippine copyright law that affects images of many modern architectural works in the Philippines posted here on Commons (but not elsewhere on the Web), and I agree with the two this should not be deleted as Seav states is clearly a government-commissioned work. It's just time not to step too far regarding lack of FOP in the Philippines, but I agree US copyright law prevails (the work needs to be both free in the US and the Philippines) and the nominator just did it right. As far as I know, Filipino architects don't mind any pictures of their works, even where posted on the Net; it's just the existing law (from the 1990s) that doesn't reflect reality. --TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 02:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Quoting user Seav:
- The architect was an employee of the government and the shrine is owned and maintained by the government. As such the shrine is considered a work of the government and according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, no copyright subsists in works of the government. This also applies to when the Philippine government was part of the United States during the time the shrine was designed. —seav (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- and PD-PhilippinesGov tag.
{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} Markoolio97 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro
[edit]- Considering that a New Director has been appointed replacing Director Blancaflor (who, I presume did not categorically respond on my or your editors' query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines) it is but just and fitting that Rulings on these Deletion of images entries be held in abeyance for the sake of Wisdom of future Users and global learners of Wikimedia Commons; on January 30, 2019, Judge Floro formally submitted a written Query on the matter, to settle once and for all whether photos should be deleted or not based on the present rules of Commons on the matter in the light of IPO-Laws on Copyright of the Philippines Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
- Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts
- Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro - dated January 30, 2019 - stating that her IPO Office received Judge Floro's letter dated January 30, 2019 and regarding the latter's "Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright”) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works." The IPO Office stated that Appropriate Action-Feedback will be issued in due course by the IPO as it referred this matter to its subordinate Bureau of the Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) Judgefloro 10:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts
- Considering that a New Director has been appointed replacing Director Blancaflor (who, I presume did not categorically respond on my or your editors' query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines) it is but just and fitting that Rulings on these Deletion of images entries be held in abeyance for the sake of Wisdom of future Users and global learners of Wikimedia Commons; on January 30, 2019, Judge Floro formally submitted a written Query on the matter, to settle once and for all whether photos should be deleted or not based on the present rules of Commons on the matter in the light of IPO-Laws on Copyright of the Philippines Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
Kept: {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} applies here. --Ankry (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine 2
[edit]No freedom of pano in the Phils. Ilustre (d. 1989) designed this "beautiful" monument ONLY on his capacity as a private citizen whne he won a competiton. Some "notes" here claiming that it is work by govt are lblatant lies.
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 09.jpg Delete focus on monument JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 10.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 11.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 12.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 13.jpg Keep monument out of focus
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 14.jpg Keep monument out of focus
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 15.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 16.jpg Keep out of focus
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 17.jpg Keep out of focus
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 21.jpg Delete in focus
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 22.jpg Delete in focus
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 23.jpg Delete in focus
- File:04785jfQuezon City Memorial Circle Gardenfvf 24.jpg Keep out of focus
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 01.JPG from here Delete with the monumental tower in focus
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 02.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 03.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 04.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 05.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 06.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 07.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 08.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 09.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 10.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 11.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 12.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 13.JPG
- File:05427jfQuezon Memorial Sky Circlefvf 14.JPG
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 05.JPG
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 06.JPG
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 08.JPG
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 10.JPG
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 12.JPG
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 13.JPG
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 16.JPG ... up to here Delete as the monument is in focus
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 18.JPG borderline case, but Weak delete as the intented object is the monument itself, and no other subjects here like a crowd or a group of people
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 19.JPG Delete in focus to the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 20.JPG Weak keep smaller sculpture is shown here, but borderline case
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 21.JPG Delete in focus to the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 22.JPG Delete monument in focus
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 23.JPG Delete smaller sculpture
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 24.JPG Delete monument in focus
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 25.JPG Delete monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 27.JPG Delete smaller sculpture
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 28.JPG Delete smaller sculpture
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 29.JPG Delete monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 30.JPG Delete smaller sculpture
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 31.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 32.JPG Delete smaller sculpture
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 33.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 34.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 35.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 36.JPG Delete monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 37.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 38.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 39.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 40.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 41.JPG Keep base is out of focus, smaller sculpture is distant, and the table (text) is out of focus
- File:05756jfQuezon City Memorial Circlefvf 42.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 01.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 02.JPG Delete monument
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 03.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 04.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05800jfQuezon Memorial Cityfvf 05.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 01.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 02.JPG Delete monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 03.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 04.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 05.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 06.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 07.JPG Delete monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 08.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 09.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 10.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 11.JPG Delete monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 12.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 13.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 14.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 15.JPG Delete monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 16.JPG Keep out of focus to the sculptural objects
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 18.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 19.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 20.JPG Delete monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 21.JPG Weak keep borderline case but, sculptural objects out of central focus
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 23.JPG Delete monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 28.JPG Delete monument
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 29.JPG Weak keep as the base "seems distant" IMO
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 31.JPG from here Delete as the images' motif is the monument...
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 32.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 33.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 34.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 35.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 37.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 40.JPG
- File:05805jfQuezon Memorial City Circlefvf 41.JPG
- File:05847jfQuezon Memorial Circle Landmark Elliptical Road Quezon Cityfvf 01.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 01.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 02.JPG ... up to here Delete as the main motif of the images is the monument
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 03.JPG Keep text and sign is too simple
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 04.JPG Keep text and sign is too simple
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 07.JPG Delete monument
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 08.JPG Keep text and sign is too simple
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 11.JPG Delete small sculpture
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 14.JPG from here Delete monument in focus...
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 15.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 16.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 17.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 18.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 19.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 20.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 21.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 22.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 23.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 24.JPG
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 27.JPG.... to here Delete monument in focus
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 28.JPG Keep scene is toward the clouds/sky
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 33.JPG Keep no focus on monument
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 37.JPG from here Delete focus on monument...
- File:7958-jfQuezon Memorial Circle Marker Mausoleumfvf 39.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 01.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 02.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 03.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 04.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 05.JPG ... to here Delete focus on monument
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 22.JPG Keep no focus on monument
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 26.JPG from here Delete focus on monument...
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 27.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 28.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 30.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 32.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 33.JPG ...to here Delete focus on monument
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 34.JPG Keep general view and monument out of focus
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 35.JPG from here Delete focus on monument...
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 36.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 37.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 38.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 39.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 40.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 41.JPG
- File:8005jfQuezon Memorial Circlefvf 42.JPG
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 01.JPG
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 02.JPG
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 03.JPG
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 04.JPG
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 05.JPG
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 07.JPG ... to here Delete focus on monument
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 14.JPG Keep generic entrance
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 22.JPG Keep unimportant part of the base
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 25.JPG Delete base of the monument
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 30.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 31.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 32.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 33.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:8051jfQuezon Memorial Circle Monumentfvf 34.JPG Delete focus on the monument
- File:8095jfQuezon Memorial Circle City Monumentfvf 28.JPG Keep no focus on monument
- File:Allan Jay Quesada - Quezon Memorial Circle fountain DSC 2689.jpg Weak keep monument is distant, and the "decorative lights" of the fountain are "ordinary" (thereby the monument no longer becomes sole subject)
- File:Allan Jay Quesada - Quezon Memorial Circle on a sunset DSC 2588.jpg Delete monument is the sole subject
- File:Circle at QC.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Manuel Quezon Memorial Shrine.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:Pure Rosero - Quezon Monument 01.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Pure Rosero - Quezon Monument 02.jpg Delete monument is an essential element here. Blurring or cropping would render it unusable
- File:Pure Rosero - Quezon Monument 03.jpg Delete same as above
- File:QC Circle Monument.jpg Delete monument is substantial here
- File:QC Circle Obelisk.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:QC MONUMENT009.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon City Circle Monument.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon City Circle Obelisk.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon City Memorial Circle (2).jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon City Memorial Circle Monument.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:QUEZON CITY MEMORIAL CIRCLE.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon city memorial circle.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon City Memorial Circle.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon City Memorial Monument.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon City Memorial Park.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon City Monument.JPG Delete monument is important here. Cropping of the top to change perspective may work, but it may become unusable image
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle - monument (Diliman, Quezon City; 01-01-2020).jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle - monument tower (Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City; 2010-08-13) 02.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle - monument tower (Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City; 2014-12-31).jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle - Monument Tower closeup.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon memorial circle 02.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 02.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 03.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 04.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 05.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 06.jpg Delete base of the monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 07.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 08.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 09.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 10.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 11.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle 12.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle monument tower (Diliman, Quezon City)(2018-02-07).jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle Monument.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Circle.jpg Keep general view, monument is distant in relation to the dimensions of the image
- File:Quezon Memorial Monument.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Rays of Light.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Shrine 19.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Shrine at Night.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Shrine by Shanax1997.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Shrine.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Memorial Structure.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon monument 1.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Monument 1.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon monument 2.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Monument 2.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon monument 3.jpg Keep monument is distant
- File:Quezon Monument 3.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon monument 4.jpg Keep monument is distant
- File:Quezon Monument 4.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Monument at Night.JPG Keep monument is distant
- File:Quezon Monument at Night.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Monument Facade.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Monument in Infra Red.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Monument in Metro Manila.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon Monument Night Artistic Shot.jpg Keep monument is distant
- File:Quezon Monument Quezon City.JPG Keep monument is distant
- File:Quezon Monument with the Fountain facade.jpg Keep monument is distant and out of focus
- File:Quezon Monument.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezon monument.jpg Delete monument is essential. See also a Belgian FOP case at: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abuela Coca Atomium.JPG.
- File:QuezonMemorialPhilippines.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:QuezonMonument.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:Quezonmonument.jpg Delete monument is essential here
- File:Sunset Quezon Memorial Circle.jpg Delete monument is essential here
- File:The Emblem of Quezon City.jpg Keep silhouetted subject
- File:The Heart of Quezon City.jpg Keep monument not the central focus and distant
- File:The Quezon City memorial Circle.JPG Delete focus on monument
- File:The Quezon Memorial Shrine.jpg Delete focus on monument
- File:WikiLovesEarth 2K19 IDK 2.jpg Delete focus on monument JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Info much of these files were discussed in two DR's before: at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial (Sept.–Oct. 2015 discussion) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Circle (Jan.–March 2019 discussion). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Judgefloro: to note, the no FoP in the Philippines matter was recently raised (anew) at the Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, in light with the recent DR's made by this new user targeting various Philippine buildings and sculptures. I hereby request admins to put this and other DR's on hold until this matter has settled. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
If I were to decide, I'd sayweak keepbecause it was argued by many Pinoy Wikipedians that this is a commissioned work of the government, with Ilustre said to be working at the Bureau of Public Works at that time. However, a new issue was raised at my undeletion attempt for the 2000's-era photo entitled File:Quezon memorial.jpg, in which Nat pointed out that Ilustre designed the monument "for a national design competition held in 1951 for the then-planned monument for late President Manuel L. Quezon, where he won the grand prize," which might also mean that he might had worked on the monument "in his capacity as a private citizen," with the date of his part on the bureau becoming irrelevant.
- Pardon me po if I might repeat page of various other users for this issue: @Jsnueva1022, Seav, Ianlopez1115, P199, King of Hearts, and TagaSanPedroAko: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Paging also @Howhontanozaz: . 17:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Update changed my poll now to strongto quote Jsnueva1022's statement: "The Quezon Memorial Shrine is a historical location located in Quezon City, Philippines. It was built by the Philippine government, local government unit of Quezon City in specific, in honor to the late President Manuel Quezon." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Keep:
Speedy keep That said, the "{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} applies here" didn't contested by the new nominator. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: The position that "{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} applies here" completely ignores the long discussion on the matter here: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Quezon_memorial.jpg --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nat, I would say that this question should better be answered by @Ankry: , the closing-admin of the previous discussions above. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I would say either put this DR on hold or Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Slashed my inputs. I will leave this matter on its natural cause without forcing the resolution (whether keep or delete) through my inputs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Extract of my undeletion attempt for the Quezon Memorial Shrine photo from the undeletion requests
|
|---|
|
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Quezon memorial.jpg, file was deleted because of "no FoP in the Philippines," deletion was made in 2012. However, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Circle (dated 2019), QMC (esp. the monument) was designer by Federico Ilustre who "was working for the Bureau of Public Works when he did this design." (per User:Jameslwoodward) Added basis is from @Seav: , quoted by @Markoolio97: :
As such, QMC is PD (a work of and owned by the government) and photos of it are permissible at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: A quote from the Philippine Star article concerning the construction of the now-demolished terminal building of the Manila International Airport (precursor of NAIA):
It seems to contradict various claims by several sites that he designed the monument as a Bureau of Public Works employee. His public works position wasn't also mentioned in the following:
If this is true then does that mean all other pictures of this monument are also affected (in particular all pictures undeleted at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#Photographs of Quezon Memorial)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: according to Jsnueva1022 at User talk:Mrcl lxmna#Nomination to delete the Quezon Memorial Shrine photo, this monument "was built by the Philippine government, local government unit of Quezon City in specific, in honor to the late President Manuel Quezon." So I think this should now rest the case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Fyi for info to you all this is a part of https://www.vigattintourism.com/tourism/articles/Quezon-Memorial-Circle-A-Famous-Historical-Park-in-Quezon-City
- "The site was originally intended as the grounds of the National Capitol to be built in Quezon City to house the Congress of the Philippines. The location was also part of a larger National Government Center located around Elliptical Road and the Quezon City Quadrangle (made up of the North, South, East, and West Triangles). The NGC was meant to house the three branches of the Philippine government (legislative, executive, and judicial). While the cornerstone for the structure was laid on November 15, 1940, only the foundations were in place when construction was interrupted by the beginning of the Second World War in the Philippines. After World War II, President Sergio Osmeña issued an executive order stipulating the creation of a Quezon Memorial Committee to raise funds by public subscription to erect a memorial to his predecessor, President Manuel L. Quezon. After a national contest was held for the purpose of designing the Quezon Memorial Project, a winning entry by Filipino architect Federico S. Ilustre was selected. Aside from the monument itself, a complex of three buildings, including a presidential library, a museum, and a theater, were also planned to be erected."
Im gping to strees this line "After a national contest was held for the purpose of designing the Quezon Memorial Project, a winning entry by Filipino architect Federico S. Ilustre was selected." MRCL LXMNA ----
Another source from https://www.theurbanroamer.com/the-soul-of-quezon-city-the-quezon-memorial-circle-and-its-shrine-part-1/
"Until the government decided to dedicate this field instead as a memorial to the man whose vision made Quezon City possible, with a shrine instead of the planned capitol to be its landmark..........A contest was soon held for the design of the planned Quezon Memorial Shrine that was to rise in the elliptical field. The prize was eventually given to the design of Filipino architect Federico Ilustre, which incorporated contemporary design with some classical and symbolic inspirations."
Take note of the RA 8293 statement. Part iv chapter 2:"""""172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. """""
After accessing and digesting the content of the debate between Nat and jwilz for some time, I am still conviced that tgese photos, until the philippines has freedom of pano, should be deleted. Accessing a philstar link to https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/modern-living/2016/01/08/1540557/portal-jet-age just only reinforces my point that this is not a government work.
"""In 1954 Magsaysay gave the Bureau of Public Works the orders to implement designs prepared by noted government architect Federico Ilustre. Ilustre had apprenticed with Juan Nakpil before the war. After Liberation, he won the competition for the Quezon Memorial. He became the chief architect of the Bureau of Public Works, the precursor of today’s DPWH."""
Ilustre designed thw monument before he came to government position so he was a private citizen at that time. This monument is not a government work, and even if it was a work by the government, could still fail its eligibility for wikimedia commons as the government is not obliged to force the creators to withdraw their moral rights. My position is delete these photos, with these massive evidences against claims made by various filipino wikipedians. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
- In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
|---|
Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime * (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
|
I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment (mirrored from my comment on another pending Philippine FOP case) the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query (the latest thread in that discussion forum that has started from September this year) reached a conclusion that none of the "near-FOP" limitations enumerated at Section 184 could be applied. While elcobbola mentioned the clause (j): "Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or, that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title." According to Clindberg it sounds like "you own a physical copy of an already-published work, you're allowed to publicly display it, but not make further copies." Clause (d) in the same section is only applicable to "reporting of current events," and clause (e) is limited to "teaching purposes," both are of fair use-type and not free enough for Commons (take note, Commons:Fair use insists Commons does not accept fair use licensing). So sadly @Judgefloro: , there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines (the current position of Commons:FOP Philippines). A potential meeting or dialogue between the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) and the Wikimedia Foundation (with freedom of panorama as the principal agenda, as based on IPOPHL's reply to the latest email sent by Higad Rail Fan) might help in introducing freedom of panorama in the Philippines, through an amendment to Republic Act No. 8293 (hopefully). When will both this meeting/dialogue and amendment happen, I cannot say yet however. I will also leave the final decision to admins in closing this and all other pending nominations at Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Final poll is Delete as this is a government-commissioned work still copyrighted by Ilustre's heirs. See also COM:Philippines#Commissioned works and COM:Philippines#Government works. Unless there is "a written stipulation on the contrary". While this may come PD in the Philippines in 2040 (50+1 years after Federico Ilustre's death), this work is not an architecture per U.S. law (not habitable). Hence, falls on COM:URAA duration 95+1 years after publication. 1972 (completion)+95+1=2068. Or if FOP is introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per en:WP:TRAINWRECK, different cases, please renominate as separate DRs. --Anatoliy (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:The Peninsula Manila
[edit]No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. Online sources say it is from 1976 so beyond 1972
- File:Manila Peninsula Hotel.jpg
- File:ManilaPennInterior.JPG
- File:Peninsula Hotel Lobby Roof.JPG
- File:Peninsula Hotel Lounge, Makati City, Philippines - panoramio.jpg
- File:Peninsula Makati Jeepney.jpg - Keep as it shows a vehicle. I leave the rest to an admin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- File:Peninsula Manila.jpg
- File:The Peninsula Manila.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Online sources say it is from 1976 so beyond 1972" - can you clarify this? If these photos go, it looks like the architects were "Gabriel Formoso who took charge of the architectural design, with the Honolulu-based firm of Wimberly, Whisenand, Allison, Tong & Goo as the consulting architects.", therefore 50 years after completion, in which case the category and all photos should be restored in 2026. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - @Simon Burchell: take note that this FOP in the Philippines matter has resurfaced following mass deletion nominations made by this apparently new user. And note also that at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:TriNoma Exec8 is contesting the claim that there's no FOP in the Philippines (I already forwarded this matter at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#September 2020 discussion on PHL FoP, you are invited to participate if you wish). Additionally, this user nominated several Commons:DM photos for deletion on the same reasoning, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meralco Avenue.jpg, in which the questioned photo is just an ordinary street scenery. Furthermore, there's also an unrelated discussion on whether to fully accept buildings built between August 1951 and Nov 1972 at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#PHL buildings from August 1951–November 1972, and you are also invited at this forum (though unfortunately this might not apply at The Peninsula Manila, but nevertheless you may participate at the discussion if you wish). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- As the uploader (to commons) of the second image but not the original uploader to en.wiki, I'm inclined to agree that these arcitectural works remain in copyright but I'm no expert on international FOP. The hotel owner's website states that the hotel was opened in 1976. Finavon (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm baffled on why the photo of a vehicle I took is a violation... I kinda make it clear in the description. Ominae (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- As the uploader (to commons) of the second image but not the original uploader to en.wiki, I'm inclined to agree that these arcitectural works remain in copyright but I'm no expert on international FOP. The hotel owner's website states that the hotel was opened in 1976. Finavon (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- To note again (@Finavon and Ominae: ) the no FoP in the Philippines matter was recently raised (anew) at the Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright, in light with the recent DR's made by this new user targeting various Philippine buildings and sculptures. I hereby request admins to put this and other DR's on hold until this matter has settled. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- If the PSC says no copyright violation's been done if we upload photos of buildings and stuff here, I wonder how any of my previous stuff (I don't remember if I did some Philippine building photos) will be upheld. Ominae (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
My latest response:
Keep. The so-called no FoP in the Philippines is just based on guesses and very literal reading of our copyright law. The lack of mention of FoP in the Philippines, plus the lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent copyright restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage (people are free to photographs such subjects here). And take note, the longstanding no FoP in the Philippines claim is being dealt with at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, so IMO no deletions should be made. My response is mirrored from my responses of other DR's that are pending as of this writing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright subsists in all phil architecture and sculptiral works. This is testified at 172.2. Of section 172, part 4 of the copyright law RA8293 """Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a)"""
Listed at works protected by copyright at sec 172.1 are:
"""(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art; """
"""(h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of applied art; """ Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Simon Burchell: new evidence is the architect Gabriel Formoso died in 1996, at https://prabook.com/web/mobile/#!profile/1038449 MRCL LXMNA
- Comment (mirrored from my comment on another pending Philippine FOP case) the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query (the latest thread in that discussion forum that has started from September this year) reached a conclusion that none of the "near-FOP" limitations enumerated at Section 184 could be applied. While elcobbola mentioned the clause (j): "Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or, that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title." According to Clindberg it sounds like "you own a physical copy of an already-published work, you're allowed to publicly display it, but not make further copies." Clause (d) in the same section is only applicable to "reporting of current events," and clause (e) is limited to "teaching purposes," both are of fair use-type and not free enough for Commons (take note, Commons:Fair use insists Commons does not accept fair use licensing). So sadly @Simon Burchell, Finavon, and Ominae: , there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines (the current position of Commons:FOP Philippines). A potential meeting or dialogue between the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) and the Wikimedia Foundation (with freedom of panorama as the principal agenda, as based on IPOPHL's reply to the latest email sent by Higad Rail Fan) might help in introducing freedom of panorama in the Philippines, through an amendment to Republic Act No. 8293 (hopefully). When will both this meeting/dialogue and amendment happen, I cannot say yet however, as there's no meeting / dialogue as of this writing yet. I will also leave the final decision to admins in closing this and all other pending nominations at Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending. But I'd say keep for Ominae's photo of vehicle as having no copyright issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except one. ƏXPLICIT 00:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. Bldg is 1994 according to wikipedia while relevant sculptures etc anonymous which is not an wxcuse for no fop on phil.
- File:BishopDeograciasS.Iñiguez,Jr.jf0193 01.JPG
- File:BishopDeograciasS.Iñiguez,Jr.jf0193 02.JPG
- File:BishopDeograciasS.Iñiguez,Jr.jf0193 03.JPG
- File:Divine Mercy Shrine, Marilao.JPG
- File:Divinejf.JPG
- File:Iconjf.JPG
- File:Jasnajf.JPG
- File:Mercyjf.JPG
- File:Mercyjfq.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0001 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0012 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0012 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0012 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0012 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0012 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0012 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0012 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0016 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0016 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0016 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0016 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0016 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0016 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0016 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0016 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0016 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0029 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 13.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 14.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0041 15.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 13.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0059 14.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 13.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 14.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0073 15.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 13.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 14.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0090 15.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 13.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 14.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0106 15.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 13.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 14.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0122 15.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 13.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 14.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0138 15.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0158 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0158 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0158 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0158 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0158 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 11.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 12.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 13.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 14.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf0168 15.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 01.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 02.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 03.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 04.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 05.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 06.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 07.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 08.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 09.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 10.JPG
- File:NationalShrineofTheDivineMercy,Philippinesjf9987 11.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep all Our Catholic Parishes, Churches, Cathedrals and Basilicas buildings are built and solemnly consecrated from Donations of both the poorest and richest parishioners - physical or manual labor including the architect engineers designer's pen but all are part of the Bayanihan method; Canon and International Law vis-à-vis Copyright Law including Extinctive Prescription of 4 years from Common Uploading bars any deletion - architect engineers designer and all contributors transfer all their rights absolutely to the Titular Owner, the Bishop Archbishop of the Diocese or Archdiocese; No Parish or Basilica can be consecrated built or retrofitted renovated without the transfer of all accessory rights to the Titular Bishop; Ergo, No Copyright exists whatsoever
- Speedy keep all Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully
4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar due to Extinctive Prescription to delete my photos and of User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions
- I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Legal Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ... respectfully Judgefloro (talk)
Deleted: per nomination, except cases of de minimis. The first three listed files need cropping. ƏXPLICIT 02:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the phils. Bldg was completed in 2013 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep, as the subject is a distance away. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - it is a bit in the distance, but it is still the main subject of that photograph, as suggested by the file name. --Gestumblindi (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convined this is too simple for copyright. Lots of changes in the shading... Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: far too simple, below TOO. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
source text has a vague discription. proabably not the original creator 웃OO 04:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Infogapp1 as no permission (No permission since). The small resolution and missing EXIF indicatting its not own work of the uploader, thou I cannot find an external source of it. JuTa 06:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ju, first thanks for starting discussion. Next, this file was uploaded by me and i am the author of the photo. I used to live in the nearby town and the photo was taken while visiting the power plant. It was rescaled to upload to websites like panoramio (which do not exists anymore), from where wikimedia/google earth has extracted hundreds of my photos. Obviously, I erase exif while uploading to external sites for privacy issues especially when they are put in public domain. Nirmaljoshi (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nirmaljoshi, can you reupload the full resolution with EXIF? --JuTa 06:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ju ok. I need to search in my old HDD, will take some time to search. For now you can check this link (https://www.facebook.com/groups/pics.civilengineering/permalink/414850321918483) where I uploaded it originally. Additionally, you can find (Rani jamaria intake during construction.jpg) also in the same group uploaded by me. BTW, how do i replace this file if i can find full resolution? Nirmaljoshi (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nirmaljoshi, can you reupload the full resolution with EXIF? --JuTa 06:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Being previously published elsewhere (espacially on facebook) requires a confirmation via Commons:OTRS. --JuTa 07:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:JuTa: requires a confirmation via Commons:OTRS. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Infogapp1 as no permission (No permission since). The small resolution and missing EXIF indicatting its not own work of the uploader, thou I cannot find an external source of it. JuTa 06:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unreliable uploader. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Found here https://malegislature.gov/Legislators/Profile/REH1/PhotoGallery so not own work as claimed. Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Completely fictitious flag uploaded by user with only one single previous contribution. Has nothing to do with Bouvet Island and is simple a random doodle by a non-contributor. Clearly out of scope. TommyG (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
File:Medaille van de VN voor vredesmissie MINURSO in de Sahara Mission des Nations unies pour l'Organisation d'un Référendum au Sahara Occidental. Baton of lint.gif
[edit]
.
_(2188117056).jpg){kind=link}
_(2187329395).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![120 File:"URUBURETAMA no Ceará em 2020.jpg.jpg](#File:"URUBURETAMA_no_Ceará_em_2020.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
Grandview_at_Pymble.jpg){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![214 File:"Shook Ones (Part II)" cover.jpg](#File:"Shook_Ones_(Part_II)"_cover.jpg){kind=link}
_(2188117056).jpg){kind=link}
_(2188117056).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2188117056).jpg){kind=link}
_(2188117056).jpg){kind=link}
_(2187329395).jpg){kind=link}
_(2187329395).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2187329395).jpg){kind=link}
_(2187329395).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Alaman_k%C3%B6y%C3%BC.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Kartalca_k%C3%B6y%C3%BC_%28Demiryolu_t%C3%BCneli_%C3%A7al%C4%B1%C5%9Fmas%C4%B1%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://scontent.fesb7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/332439_125434840910354_1987404417_o.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=2&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=VQmhYeKP6tIAX__7mqy&_nc_ht=scontent.fesb7-1.fna&oh=3c38d36f727650684d2e08719a91f976&oe=5FD8A0EC){kind=link}
_(22607964614).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(22940589530).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(22609310033).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![21:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/09/03#c-Denniss-2020-09-03T21:59:00.000Z-File:"URUBURETAMA_no_Ceará_em_2020.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
![09:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/09/03#c-Gbawden-2020-10-05T09:33:00.000Z-File:"URUBURETAMA_no_Ceará_em_2020.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537457415){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537457419){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537457748){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537457902){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537457905){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537458149){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537458156){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537465260){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537465624){kind=link}
![[23]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537465631){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537465790){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dan_Trotta_at_the_Gale_Anne_Hurd_Masterclass_(6829984489).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=537465793){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=next&oldid=538463270){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_par_Nori_Malo-Renault_(1871-1953).jpg){kind=link}
,_sign%C3%A9_Nori_Malo-Renault_(1871-1953).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Nori,_pastel_par_Emile_Malo-Renault.jpg&oldid=693835365){kind=link}
_par_Nori_Malo-Renault.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Grandview_at_Pymble.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Grandview_at_Pymble.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Grandview_at_Pymble.jpg){kind=link}
Grandview_at_Pymble.jpg){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(2018-02-07).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%22_cover.jpg){kind=link}
%22_cover.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![02:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/09/03#c-Magog_the_Ogre-2020-09-03T02:05:00.000Z-File:"Shook_Ones_(Part_II)"_cover.jpg){kind=link}
![19:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/09/03#c-P199-2021-04-05T19:07:00.000Z-File:"Shook_Ones_(Part_II)"_cover.jpg){kind=link}
Bad quality. Please redir to 
. Wickey (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Ribbon is sand with UN blue edges. But, de ribbon with white and blue seems a ribbon and with sand and blue, like ribbed cardboard.
- Keep: No valid reason. Maybe a new neutral name. Lidewij (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: This file is still in use on nl:Medaille voor Vredesmissies van de Verenigde Naties and nl:ONUB. Under COM:INUSE, used files shouldn't be deleted for poor quality. --bjh21 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Bjh21. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This sure looks like a professional studio photo to me. Do professional photographers commonly publish their work under Creative Commons licensing? 217.239.14.190 11:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry only in german. Ich nehme nicht an, dass das Foto von einem professionellen Fotografen war, sonst hätte das Foto keine Exifdaten. Die bleiben dort üblicherweise nicht dabei. Und wenn ist das nur ein Verdacht und im Zweifel für den "Angeklagten" ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 19:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Na dann in German zurück. :-)
- Die Schlussfolgerung aus dem Vorhandensein von Exif-Daten scheint mir reichlich spekulativ, nichts für ungut. Genausogut könnte man aus dem Kameramodell schließen, dass es sich um einen Profi-Fotografen handelt, denn unsere WP sagt "Der Hersteller richtet sie an professionelle Nutzer."
- Was die Lizensierung betrifft, so gilt übrigens keineswegs "im Zweifel für den Angeklagten". Sondern im Gegenteil, der Hochladende hat die korrekte Lizensierung zu gewährleisten. Derselbe Nutzer hat übrigens auch das hier hochgeladen. Willst Du da auch "im Zweifel für den Angeklagten" sagen?
- Wohlgemerkt, ich unterstelle dem Nutzer keine bösen Absichten, sondern nur Unwissenheit. Aber Unwissenheit macht noch kein Urheberrecht. --217.239.14.199 19:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Das mit dem Kameramodell ist ja noch ein größerer Nonsens, denn Wikimedia verfügt selbst auch über solche Kameras, abgesehen einzelner Fotografen bei uns. siehe diesem Foto File:Christian Ludwig Attersee - Veranstaltung „1. Tag des Wiener Wohnbaus“.JPG - Du kannst aber nicht ein Gegenteil der unkorrekten Lizenzierung beweisen, sondern nur vermuten. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 08:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sicher sind das Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark IV alles Fotos von Profis, kannst ja weiter LA stellen. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 17:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Das mit dem Kameramodell ist ja noch ein größerer Nonsens, denn Wikimedia verfügt selbst auch über solche Kameras, abgesehen einzelner Fotografen bei uns. siehe diesem Foto File:Christian Ludwig Attersee - Veranstaltung „1. Tag des Wiener Wohnbaus“.JPG - Du kannst aber nicht ein Gegenteil der unkorrekten Lizenzierung beweisen, sondern nur vermuten. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 08:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, not found elsewhere using Google Images. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This is called selfie – that's unlikely. It's not called own work – probably copyright violation. Real photographer must be identified and (s)he must send OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Having searched the NLS online version of the 1903 Encyclopaedia Britannica, though there is an entry in American Ethnology that mentions "Americans are straight-haired or Mongoloid" there is nothing like this colour image to be found. The book published that year was not in colour and there is basically only one use of the word "mongoloid".
The image appears deliberately badly sourced, deliberately named to promote scientific racism based on a source that does not justify it, and the claim of public domain is not verifiable. The image may be from a much later work than 1903 and has clearly been harvested from a web page that is not mentioned. "Hugh Chisholm" referenced was an editor for the 1922 edition, but they are unlikely to be the artist.
Unless someone wants to invest more time trying to track down the uploader's source, this should be deleted per COM:PRP. Fæ (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Probably related, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mongoloid race Huxley 1903 Encyclopedia Britannica.png (2014 deletion) --Fæ (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- They are the same image. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
falscher Farbton, nicht korrekt lizensiert, ich lade das Bild nochmals korrigiert wieder hoch english: wrong color, not correctly licensed, I will upload the corrected image again Susanne Elsig-Lohmann (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dunkleosteus77 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No FOP in Italy Notafly (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Educational institution. No photography resrictions. Didactic display.Please reconsider Notafly (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Even if educational, the model must be in the public domain or you have to get permission from the artist for you to publicly release a picture of it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this is appropriate {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}
- This specifies a CC-BY-NC-ND license, which would make it fair use instead of free use, and you'd have to present a valid argument for why this image is irreplaceable by a free image. Considering we have free reconstructions of Ambulocetus (albeit not 3D), such an argument cannot be made Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- This image should be deleted unless you are in the process of trying to get permission from the artist to keep this picture (see Commons:OTRS) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete As a BY-NC-ND licensed file, it should stay at itwiki, not here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it's applicable for any CC license since a sculpture of a 50 million year old Pakistani animal probably wouldn't fall under "Italian cultural heritage" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Dunkleosteus77: Fair Use is not allowed here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: indeed, so it should be deleted Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio and no permission from the artist who designed this or his heir. @Notafly: Commons requires images to be licensed so that they can be commercially reused, even derivatives like images of FoP-reliant subjects (architecture, sculptures, etc..) Unfortunately, Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama. {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} doesn't remove copyright protection: see Nat's input at my failed undeletion attempt at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:Chiesa dio padre misericordioso roma.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: indeed, so it should be deleted Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Dunkleosteus77: Fair Use is not allowed here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Very closely matching derived work, original still in copyright. Fails derivative works and precautionary principle.
Copyright review: Comparing to a borrowed edition of "Anthropology" (published New York 1948), the concepts are of scientific racism and "FIG. 8" on page 140 is exactly this derived work, being exactly the design chosen with the positioning of circles, but with the various "races" like "African Negroes" and "Asiatic Mongoloids" being text inside the circles rather than a key. As the design is not a pure chart of data, but an author creation, there is no argument that all charts showing these debunked theories of human races would be accidentally drawn this way. Fæ (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:GMA Network Center
[edit]No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. The GMA Bldg is designed by roger villarosa who is probably still alive - https://bluprint.onemega.com/work-with-honor-rogelio-villarosa/ an architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 01.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 03.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 04.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 05.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 06.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 07.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 08.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 12.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 19.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 20.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 21.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 22.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 23.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 24.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 25.jpg
- File:0408jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 26.jpg
- File:0435jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 01.jpg
- File:0435jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 02.jpg
- File:0435jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 03.jpg
- File:0435jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 09.jpg
- File:0435jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 12.jpg
- File:0435jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 15.jpg
- File:0435jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 16.jpg
- File:0435jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 17.jpg
- File:0435jfGMA Network Center Timog Avenue Broadcastingfvf 18.jpg
- File:09520jfGMA Network Center Walk of Famefvf 07.jpg
- File:09520jfGMA Network Center Walk of Famefvf 08.jpg
- File:09520jfGMA Network Center Walk of Famefvf 09.jpg
- File:09520jfGMA Network Center Walk of Famefvf 10.jpg
- File:09601jfTimog Avenue Barangay Sacred Heart GMA Network Center EDSAfvf 23.jpg
- File:09601jfTimog Avenue Barangay Sacred Heart GMA Network Center EDSAfvf 24.jpg
- File:09601jfTimog Avenue Barangay Sacred Heart GMA Network Center EDSAfvf 26.jpg
- File:09601jfTimog Avenue Barangay Sacred Heart GMA Network Center EDSAfvf 27.jpg
- File:09943jfInterior of the Our Lady of the Rosary Church Makinabang Baliuag Bulacanfvf 03.jpg
- File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 08.jpg
- File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 09.jpg
- File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 10.jpg
- File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 12.jpg
- File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 13.jpg
- File:EDSA - Mega Q-Mart, GMA Network (Cubao, Quezon City)(2018-03-19).jpg -- Keep DM. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
(2018-03-19).jpg){kind=link}
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Found this after the talkpage of Judgefloro "emerged on the top" of my watchlist again.
File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 08.jpg- File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 09.jpg
- File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 10.jpg
- File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 12.jpg
File:2649Guadalupe Kamuning MRT Station Metro Manila 13.jpg- File:EDSA - Mega Q-Mart, GMA Network (Cubao, Quezon City)(2018-03-19).jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment slashed my keep input, as architecture is considered as fine arts in the Philippines than applied art in the West. Also no applicable FOP, de minimis is debatable if it really exists in the Philippine legal literature (to my knowledge it doesn't). See also my comments on some other Philippine FOP-related DRs. Regular permissive rules (obtaining permission from the architect) still applies while FOP provision is still pending in the Congress. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
- In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
|---|
Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime[edit]* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.[edit]
|
I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination except one. ✗plicit 13:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama building looks recent or post 1972 so it is assumed NOT OK. Phil copyrights law doesnt allow reuse of photos of copyrighted bldgs and culptures other then fair use and non commercial use. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep building has
low COM:TOOan architectural style that cannot pass COM:Threshold of originality JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC) (modify and fix my wording. Still this is just a plain townhouse or condo kf some sort JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC))
- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Distorted or no copyrightable elements visible from this angle. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Plainness or no copyrightable element is an irrational excuse. Countering the plainness arguments is one deletion req i recently digested and researched. At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Bank_of_the_Philippine_Islands, your moderator jim once said: - """""Exactly half of the 122 countries that we have information on (including the Philippines) do not have any FOP. It is important to remember that FOP is an exception to ordinary copyright which prohibits the reproduction in any form of copyrighted works, so the absense of any provision for FOP cannot be unclear -- it simply isn't there. As for the"plainness" argument, The Philippine law says:
"172.1 Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose."
That is similar to the law in other countries.""""" Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: such an angle that shows just a plain building without copyrightable elements. --rubin16 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
There's not enough publication information to determine whether it's public domain in the US. The photo was taken before 1925, but it's highly unlikely it was published before 1925. It would more likely be public domain if had been first published in a periodical that was not subsequently renewed, but that's difficult to determine and I haven't found much in an initial attempt to find its original source. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- In that case we should keep this 100+ years old photo. Why would we lose a valuable image w/o any copyvio indication? --E4024 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Sinatra was born in 1915, for anonymous work the protection will end in 120 years since creation (as we have no information about publication and it is said to be a family photo, maybe, even not published before). So, 1915 + 120 = 2035 at least. --rubin16 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
