Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/11/23

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive November 23rd, 2020
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sheykhi2.jpg

[edit]

تکراری است شریعت خنشا (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AlzaBox v roce 2020.jpg

[edit]

user for an article which was deemed insignificant; very poor quality Jan Myšák (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio at 10:22, 23 November 2020 UTC: Copyright violation: photo of a screen --Krdbot 15:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AntaresParliament 202.svg

[edit]

Fantasy diagram: out of scope. See https://stellarisinvicta.fandom.com/wiki/Antares_Confederacy Slashme (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Darkzified

[edit]

Fantasy diagrams: out of scope. See https://www.nationstates.net/nation=hisal --Slashme (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:EU INTCEN Jorge Adrian Jimenez Torres.jpg

[edit]

This image has been used for impersonating an EU official, also in attempts to maliciously insert false information in the EU INTCEN wikipedia page Zzzrt31 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. en:Jorge Adrian Jiménez Torres (still cached) was deleted as blatant hoax. Even Jorge Adrian Jiménez Torres' accounts on twitter and linkedin are suspended. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Hoax, COM:CSD#G3, File:Jorge Adrian Jimenez Torres.jpg as well. --Achim (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:INTCEN Jorge Adrian Jimenez Torres.jpg

[edit]

This image has been used for impersonating an EU official, also in attempts to maliciously insert false information in the EU INTCEN wikipedia page Zzzrt31 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. en:Jorge Adrian Jiménez Torres (still cached) was deleted as blatant hoax. Even Jorge Adrian Jiménez Torres' accounts on twitter and linkedin are suspended. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Hoax, COM:CSD#G3. --Achim (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:مهندس خیرالهی.jpg

[edit]

اشتباه است Farshadkarimi77 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fausto come il duce.jpg

[edit]

Because it was uploaded by error, i didn't want to upload it. Mcavalca95 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Oskar Brandt (2020).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Oskbrandt as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: privacy: I did not gave my permision do upload this photo! please delete it
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion.
@Oskbrandt, so, you uploaded this image of yourself by yourself in June 2020. And now you claim "I did not gave my permision do upload this photo!" Is this a joke? -- Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Wdwd at 14:48, 23 November 2020 UTC: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oskar Brandt (2020).jpg: This file was initially tagged by Oskbrandt as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: privacy: I did not gave my permision do upload this photo! please delete it
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion.
@Oskbrandt, so, you uploaded this image of yourself by yourself in June 2020. And now you claim "I did not gave my permision do upload this photo!" Is this a joke? -- --Krdbot 03:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Robertgatica04 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: F10. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sharjeeltahir.jpg

[edit]

Its my picture and i want you to delete it and all related images. Thanks 110.39.196.250 05:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its my picture and i want you to delete it and all related images. Thanks Malik450 (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its my picture and i want you to delete it and all related images. Thanks 110.39.196.250 09:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete by courtesy. Unused personal image. --Achim (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, courtesy-deletion, as unused former UPI. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Odufa1234 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

images uploaded for self-promotion

Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by Jon Kolbert. --Minoraxtalk 05:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pulau Indah 180.jpg

[edit]

Advertisement, out of scope, no educational use. Velma (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mont Music Card.jpg

[edit]

Advertisement, out of scope, no educational use. Velma (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Limousine for Funeral Services Santa Barbara.jpg

[edit]

Advertisement (out of scope). Velma (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hiring-3556411 1920.jpg

[edit]

Advertisement, out of scope, not used. Velma (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Easter Bunny 1234.gif

[edit]

Advertisement, out of scope. Velma (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cutienotes 5er Package "saywhat".jpg

[edit]

Advertisement (out of scope). Velma (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cutienotes 4er Package "kloCo".jpg

[edit]

Advertisement (out of scope). Velma (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Orukele m (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All claimed as own work but... a few have a watermark, others look like scans due to the letterboxing. Unlikely to be own work. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Elpepefachero (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Culturehistory (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Hossamaldaly2020 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Anonymussumynona0202 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Anonymussumynona0202 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by SlowenyHUN (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Suspected copyvios - lower res, no camera EXIF, uploaded by serial copyvio uploader (see deleted contribs) whose m.o. is to take landscape/street scene/architecture images primarily from Google Street View, etc.--these are, of course, that same subject matter. Duck/COM:PRP issue.

Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Daemon2010 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

This user has uploaded some files, which need OTRS tickets from different copyright holders

91.65.69.93 10:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Я думаю, что можно удалить вот эти:

Первое больше не нужно, т.к. была удалена статья, для которой загружалось изображение. 2,3,4 могут иметь проблемы с лицензией и их тоже следует удалить. Остальные удалять недопустимо, особенно:

У них явно истек срок защиты авторского права. --Daemon2010 (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, no evidence, that any of not-crossed images are free. The date 1931 is not enough.

Нет утверждении, что какое-нибудь изображение из непрочеркнутых действительно свободное. Год 1931 этого не покажет, потому что автор вполне мог прожить 15 лет ещё и в том случае изображение защищено авторскими правами. Taivo (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Daemon2010 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Dubious licensing, no indication why these are in public domain.

VLu (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Ju Admirer (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No evidence of "own work".

Rodrigolopes (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Twitter filter on image.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope personal photo Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 08:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Statues of Lenin in Volgograd Oblast

[edit]

There is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for monuments.

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

На первой фотографии памятник не является основным объектом съёмки, поэтому удалению не подлежит. 176.59.37.244 04:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by PoliticalCake (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by PoliticalCake (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:RED STAR & JEALOUS MOON.png

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by NikkyPA1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused low quality photos of bird already well-represented on Commons.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tura las 3 noches 2020.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sistemet Fotovoltaike.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Babo cartel de santa.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dra pompa bariatric.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Provincia de Eustaquio Méndez.png

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial flag. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jackie C Aquino.jpg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by PuenteOscuro (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A.j Novak.jpeg

[edit]

Taken from Facebook. E4024 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bambini che usano la Creta.jpg

[edit]

Taken from Facebook. E4024 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:আফসানা হক খান .jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gráncsa Ferenc.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Archbishop S. Michael Augustine of Pondicherry.jpg

[edit]

Taken from Facebook. E4024 (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Thakur Arjun Singh Rathore (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fərid Pərdəşünas.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Medjeded (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Medjeded (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Medjeded (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Medjeded (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pasindualawathugoda.jpg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Calle Principal de La Guardia. - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

Out of project scope due to bad quality: tilted and blurry. Taivo (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by User:Nina Dublenco on November 22, 2020

[edit]

These images represent copyrighted works of artist Igor Dublenco, not uploader's own work, unless they are the same person. --Pafsanias (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Grace packers and movers Chennai.jpg

[edit]

out of scope - advertising Cabayi (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:WillkommensAG logo mit hintergrund.png

[edit]

Out of scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:വിശുദ്ധ ഹാനിബാള്.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:UPLOAD2W.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Barkat99 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Officer's Carriole prettier & perpetually oversetting Canadian Carriole safe & pleasant (I0006870).tif

[edit]

wrong image was uploaded -- file does not contain image R.sauce (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Klebert Drenthe.jpg

[edit]

own work claim but taken from subjects facebook https://www.facebook.com/KlebertDrenthe/photos/a.1037938716255456/3051483151567659/?type=1&theater Agora (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Anasechatibi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the first one, taken from Facebook.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jan Osúch.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by HimiloQaran (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other websites you are talking about are the Himilo Qaran facebook page and Sharif Sheikh Ahmed's twitter account. Himilo Qaran 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dj Lagugga..jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Archbishop S. Michael Augustine of Pondicherry and Cuddalore.jpg

[edit]

Dubious own work. (Please see uploader's talk page.) E4024 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pope John Paul 2 blessing Archbishop Michael Augustine.JPG

[edit]

Not an own work. At least the past user behaviour indicates need for suspicion. E4024 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Airport jinzhou.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%94%A6%E5%B7%9E%E9%94%A6%E5%B7%9E%E6%B9%BE%E6%9C%BA%E5%9C%BA/23766129 (Click on the image to see a watermarked version). The other uploads of this user could also be considered for deletion, as they appear to be copied from other websites. Johnj1995 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Himyarite War.jpg

[edit]

On en:File talk:Himyarite War.jpg Azd0815 is claiming that the image was plagiarized from this publication which predates the upload for a few years. I am not seeing a free licence anywhere, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pikvis in de Noordzee.png

[edit]

Nonsense, no educational value. Tekstman (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1918-05-96, La Novela Teatral, Tomás Bretón, Tovar.jpg

[edit]

Author is not Manuel Tovar but Fernando Fresno (d. 1949). Undelete in 2030. Strakhov (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:United American Provences Presidential 2019.svg

[edit]

Out of scope: unused fantasy diagram Slashme (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ehemaliger Standort der Weißfrauenkirche.jpg

[edit]

Bild zeigt nicht den ehemaligen Gebäudestandort - ist also falsch Centraldream (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Statue for peace between nations (1977) - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of Finnish sculpor Kaarlo Kalliomäki (d. 1984?), sculpture unveiled in 1977. No Freedom of Panorama for sculptures in Finland, not in PD yet. Htm (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ква.jpg

[edit]

the photo was uploaded by a participant who created a meaningless article on ru-wiki. it is highly likely that this image was taken from the Internet. Khinkali (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Yes, the image can be easily found all over the internet. Gikü (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Conmebol trophy files

[edit]

Similar case to this, this and this. It may be files uploaded later after the deletions. All are works derived from Conmebol competitions established until 2008; but that are still copyrighted; missing licenses or copyvios.

Files affected

Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DHick.jpg

[edit]

Same as his twitter pic - https://twitter.com/DanHicken/photo - no exif, not own work. Needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ebenezeer Marfo.jpg

[edit]

Unused low resolution portrait Lymantria (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride.jpg

[edit]

{{BadJPG}}, replaced by File:1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride.svg. Leyo 09:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Improvement done! Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! DMacks (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nick’sparliamentprojectuni.svg

[edit]

Private file: out of scope Slashme (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by User:Penyunting1998

[edit]

These files are unlikely to be own work, missing EXIF, and believed copyvio.

-- Symphonium264 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Husky 2013-04-16 04-42.jpg

[edit]

Suspicious file, please review:

I was not able to identify the original source, but based on the evidence above, I seriously doubt the uploader is the creator/copyright owner of this file. --El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Taalebhassanikhaan.jpg

[edit]

Private image, unused. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk   10:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Taller de seguimiento al estudio “Evaluación del cumplimiento de las pautas del neurodesarrollo en niños menores de seis años” 1.jpg

[edit]

Unused photo of meeting with no indication of significance. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kimbavan.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal Image, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk   10:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Adeyemi adekunle vincent.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal image. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk   10:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ali Danesh Manesh .jpg

[edit]

Unused personal image. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk   10:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Peter smolders.jpg

[edit]

Private picture, no educational value. Tekstman (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Piemel.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation Tekstman (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Logo EHC.jpg

[edit]

I uploaded a SVG version File:EHC Basel Logo.svg and replaced this version Malo95 (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: should be kept because of otrs. --Polarlys (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Снимок экрана 2015-07-10 в 18.48.55.png

[edit]

Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. pernomination --Polarlys (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Espada llameante.jpg

[edit]

Low-quality artwork without obvious educational use 2001:14B8:1810:3322:799C:4858:FD98:4659 13:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Naked man sandy road blue sky.jpg

[edit]

Moved to Flickr Rumblerumble33 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Naked man sandy road blue sky.jpg

[edit]

Moving to Flickr Rumblerumble33 (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Naked man sandy road blue sky.jpg

[edit]

Moving to Flickr Rumblerumble33 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Naked man on the beach standing by a sign.jpg

[edit]

Moved to Flickr Rumblerumble33 (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Naked man on the beach standing by a sign.jpg

[edit]

Moving to Flickr Rumblerumble33 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Naked man on the beach standing by a sign.jpg

[edit]

Moving to Flickr Rumblerumble33 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Virions-Electron micrograph of CaMV virions.png

[edit]

doi:10.1046/j.1364-3703.2002.00136.x Figure 1 published 31 October 2002 is identical to this image so this looks like a copyright violation. Matt (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: good catch, journal says: „Courtesy of J. Menissier de Murcia, Ecole Supérieure de Biotechnologie de Strasbourg.“. --Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ພະເຈົ້າອິນທະໂສມ.jpg

[edit]

Not an Own work, but a copyrighted work from https://zayplay.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-epic-of-mainland-southeast-asia.html ชาวไทย (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:พระเจ้ากิ่งกิสราช.jpg

[edit]

Not an Own work, but a copyrighted work from https://zayplay.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-epic-of-mainland-southeast-asia.html ชาวไทย (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Setthathirath+II.jpg

[edit]

Copyright infringement of https://zayplay.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-epic-of-mainland-southeast-asia.html ชาวไทย (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mahmoud Abbas describes the Trump Peace Plan as "Swiss Cheese".jpg

[edit]

I uploaded it in the mistaken belief that the UN Photo Library released photos under a useable copyright licence. I think I was wrong, so suggest deleting. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ພະເຈົ້າອະນຸວົງມະຫາຣາດ.jpg

[edit]

Not an own work, but a copyrighted work from https://zayplay.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-epic-of-mainland-southeast-asia.html ชาวไทย (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ເຈົ້ານັນທະຣາດ.jpg

[edit]

Not an own work, but a copyrighted work from https://zayplay.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-epic-of-mainland-southeast-asia.html ชาวไทย (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:WymondhamArchers.jpg

[edit]

Not up to date Peter WG Hill (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Claudette Nevins.jpg

[edit]

unlikely to be own work Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see https://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/a/4q8dgG/melrose-place-stjarnan-dod and https://web.archive.org/web/20161002130431/http://www.claudettenevins.com/images.html (inside flash presentation) --Achim (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:UPPL Logo 6.png

[edit]

NOT useful Anacondapython (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: in use. --Achim (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak delete Not familiar with the subject, but I notice the following:
  1. File is used in the UPPL article and the uploader's (enwiki) sandbox.
  2. File was added to the UPPL article by the uploader.
  3. File is claimed own work (so either copyvio or COI?).
  4. The UPPL article and the uploader's (enwiki) user and talk pages have no COI declaration, but the uploader's (enwiki) talk page does have several warnings, including one about COI.
  5. Nominator has made many edits to the article and should be well-placed to comment on it.
In short, it looks like the file is not legitimately in use. Brianjd (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Brianjd. --Polarlys (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Québec Crossbuck 1995-1999.png

[edit]

No sources and uploaded by a sockpuppet. It is highly unlikely this sign ever existed. Fry1989 eh? 16:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Data talk:Omnioramas de El Bierzo.map

[edit]

error de código. solicitud del autor Galopax (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abp SMA official.jpg

[edit]

I first marked it for copyvio (FB file) but as it is in use let us give it a deletion record. (There are several other images of the priest, so interested users can easily replace this one at WP.) E4024 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:تاق سنگی هرسین soheilchehri.jpg

[edit]

به دلیل عنوان عکس Soheilchehri (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Euan twitter.jpg

[edit]

Same as his twitter pic - https://twitter.com/euanashley/photo - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --CptViraj (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MusicXML C Whole Note.png

[edit]

This file is obsolete as I created a SVG version from it and substituted all the pages linking to it. Joaopaulo1511 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kaldari (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MusicXML C Whole Note.png

[edit]

There is already a SVG version and the PNG is not used anymore. JoaoPaulo1511 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Gone Postal, no valid reason for deletion. --CptViraj (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Office of the Leader of the House of Lords.png

[edit]

This is obviously not an own work, but I wonder whether the graphical part of the logo may be old enough to have exited copyright somehow Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Fitindia at 08:48, 1 Dezember 2020 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RayanS93 --Krdbot 15:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 found with Special:Search/Subscribe to PewDiePie posters in Dhaka

[edit]

Derivative works of non-free posters. No FOP for 2D works in Bangladesh. There may be a COM:DM argument to be made about the original, but the edited version is clearly not DM.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


 Comment We should move this into his wiki origin (English Wikipedia). Sr. Knowthing (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment enwiki doesn't accept images of non-free artworks either, @El Rolo Ueeqee: , except only one of these will be moved there under fair use limitation (see w:Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama; the English Wikipedia follows U.S. FOP by default, which is limited to buildings). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Armenian bombardment of Azerbaijani territories.jpg

[edit]

Copyright issues. Nowhere does it explain on the actual source that this photograph is in the public domain. 104.172.33.143 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was released by a state body. Solavirum (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. You need the proper license for it to which you don't have. EtienneDolet (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I ain't the uploader. Solavirum (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gary Johnson signature.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by %USER% as no source SecretName101 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Murale rue Dufresne.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Murale rue Ontario est.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Murale1 - Parc Compagnon-de-Saint-Laurent.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Murale1-PiscineBadlwin.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Murale2 - Parc Compagnon-de-Saint-Laurent.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Murale2-PiscineBalwin.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Murale3 - Parc Compagnon-de-Saint-Laurent.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Murale3-PiscineBaldwin.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lil Richard toy.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Metropolitan Cathedral of Zamboanga

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the phils and no permission from the architects. 2002 building by Abarro and Associates firm - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamboanga_Cathedral

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit. Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Metropolitan Cathedral of Zamboanga

[edit]

While these original resolution images are uploader's self-photographed images, freedom of panorama is not yet provided in the copyright law. The current "incarnation" of the cathedral dates to 1998 per w:Zamboanga Cathedral and was completed in 2002, designed by firm Abarro and Associates according to enwiki. Permission from Abarro and Associates is required while the prevailing no FOP situation exists.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Saint Andrew the Apostle Church

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the phils and no permission from the heirs of ARCHITECT LEANDRO V. LOCSIN, 1994 dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Andrew_the_Apostle_Church

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Because No Copyright whatsoever exists or is in favor of any artist who creates anything in a Catholic Church; reason is the Ecclesiastical and International Law agreements and Conventions regarding ownership of Church property and accessories in the titular Roman Catholic Bishop or Bishop or in this case the Archbishop of Manila Pabillo; when an artist creates he transfers by operation of Canon Law vis-à-vis exception to Copyright Law all his rights for he has been paid as Commissioned by the Bishop Titular;
  • rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
  • De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions

May I, if you please, interject an important matter but off-tangent here: I have still too many pictures to upload, hence I could not yet put inputs and discussions in the more than 50 Mass Deletions of my Photos in User:RamonFVelasquez; may I underscore as Legal Impediment of Deletion the clear and unequivocal S. C. New 2019 Circular on Copyright and Intellectual Property amending the previous CJ circulars - this is for the Special Courts created; in the Hierarchy -a) the highest is this Circular - which puts a Legal Bar by virtue of the 4 years Prescription under the Civil Code and specifically the Copyright Law and Intellectual Property Laws in many Code of the Philippines; b) second is S. C. Jurisprudence on the specific issue of Uploading in Commons, Flickr etc on FOP c) DOJ Secretary Opinion on FOP if not declined d) IPO New Director Opinion on my 2 Letters if ever issued e) secondary authority from CA here or USA S.C. Jurisprudence and then Federal Rules Jurisprudence like the Circuit Courts of CA; f) Learned treatises like that which I cited, Sycip law office inter alia; I opine that this New SC Circular on 4 years prescription (from Uploading by RamonFVelasquez, my Photos taken by him and me and uploaded edited by said Wiki Break User; that is, on 2015 more or less, all photos of mine there can no longer be deleted - since each Mass Deletion Request falls squarely under the 4 corners of 2012 Cybercrime law cognizable by the DOJ per the NBI Cybercrime Division) so all the Mass Deletion Requests of the Smart One thereat Ramon, tagged since September until today, should be Denied outright and I note that the Smart One has been repeatedly ordered to stop the Mass Deletions; I am just waiting for the Right Time to file the proper Pleadings ... on the matter; due to the Declaration against Interest of the Smart One and tons of Evidence of Cyber Crime Mass Deletion); I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus I repeat 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 ... thanks

Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos

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)[reply]
  •  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

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)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

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.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;
  • 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) 03:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions in My Talk Pages by Herein Mass Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited a) Legal, b) Moral Reasons and in the c) LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia

  • CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;
  • However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;
  • On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;
  • When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;
  • I am 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;
  • It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Starter of Mass Deletion Requests, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:
  • If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;
  • Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;
  • As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator, I underscore, for clarity's sake - Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator are NULL and VOID ab Initio as they are a) Unlawful under Philippine Laws, and b) contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator is a Virtual and Desperate Attempt to Erase Valued Images or Most Important Cultural Heritage Treasures of the Philippines from Commons Ownership without any Valid Legal Basis, but just mere copy paste citations or Provisos of Laws, without any Jurisprudential Support - to be specific - rather trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted ...
  • In-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions;
  • WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Mass Nominations for Deletions, including your legal sayings without any Jurisprudential either Phil or US are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in Philippines Law and Fact;
  • In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions of Herein Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited Legal, Moral Reasons and in the LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or delete; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objections EVER to the Requested Mass Non-Stop Deletions of herein Nominator and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit. Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Saint Andrew the Apostle Church

[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg and COM:FOP Philippines. According to IPOPHL-BCRR, while the bill to amend the copyright law is pending, regular rules apply. This means the uploader/photographer must obtain permission and consent for public domain licensing from the heirs of architect Leandro Locsin (who died in 1994). Nominated images show the church's exterior and interior architecture plus some interior works of artistic craftsmanship (stained glass windows).

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandang Mabagyong Hapon sa Imo poe The Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta and the Joint Force of IPO including the Bureau of Copyrights; did issue the Latest Circulars Implementing the Copyright Law of the Philippines, to wit:
  • Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases Improves Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship. participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
a) the Creator, or Copyright Holder must prove Legal Personality by preponderance of evidence, that is - Documentary proofs of the alleged in the complaint for Copyright or trademark infringement; b) the Special Court taking cognizance of the Filed with paid Docket fees Copyright case will either dismiss or try the case; c) the Case must be filed within 4 years Prescriptive period from the alleged in the complaint publication in any format whether in newspaper, internet etc.; the tolling of the period starts from the publications, here, in Uploading in Commons irrespective of the knowledge of the Complainant, Commons Uploading being Public; d) A Motion to Dismiss may strike out the Complaint upon the ground of Extinctive prescription; irrespective of the Commons Policies, the Court has the mandate to strictly follow the Peralta-IPO Circular of 2019 amending In Toto the pertinent provisions of the 1989 Rules on Evidence or previous Webinars, IPO or Bureau of Copyright issuances by the former and present Directors or Heads; even the former Issued DOJ Opinions are Ipso Facto amended to conform to the above-enumerated requirement; e) Nobody including any Nominator of Commons, including especially herein Mass Deleter, can legally and validly file or tag in Commons, a single or Mass Deletion request, without first obtaining a Special Power of Attorney from the alleged Creators, here for example, SM City SuperMalls; f) Any SPA that may be issued must must and must be submitted to Commons Permissions, and without such SPA, any and all Nominations by herein or any Deletor on FOP inter alia, arising from the alleged rights of Copyrights Holders, the Nomination is Null and Void Ab Initio; any repeated repeated and repeated references to the alleged verbal and not official (Vide: criminal violations of public officials under R.A. 6713 and R.A. 3019) and written statements are Legal Falsehoods, not countenanced by the Rule of Law vis-à-vis the Highest 1987 Constitutional Due Process and Press Freedom or Expression tightly guarded by Philippine Laws;
In the specific case of SM Supermalls including here photos of SM, suffice it to say, that SM Supermalls owns the Copyright and no artist or architect outside it did ever create or did have any moral or copyrights issues; this is so, since SM Supermalls have their own creators, architects etc. who before and after the works, waived any rights whatsoever in favor of the SM Corporation and its Holding Corporation; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mirrored reply. @Judgefloro: look back at the Section 172.2 of the Republic Act No. 8293.: 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. While registration still exists, it only helps to give additional benefits to the copyright holders like architects, sculptors or their heirs, but copyright protection itself already starts from the moment of creation, not from the time of optional registration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content: Judgefloro's sermon on unconnected matter like cybercrime, unfounded claims about denial of Philippine architects' and sculptors' copyrights, some form of threat against IPOPHL officials, etc.
  • Urgent and Fervent Appeal to Commons Community to Put On Hold the Mass Deletion Requests Non-Stop and Unlawful under the Strict Provisions of Philippines Criminal (Penal) Law on Cybercrimes-stalking : to Defer possible Mass Deletions - Erasing of Valued Photos of National Interest from the Herein User Deleter, based on Moral grounds and most certain irreparable Damage and Injury to Commons files and contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users, with all Due Respect: I am reproduce herein as part hereof My Legal Treatise for the kindness of the Commons Community to review and to Declare Null and Void Ab Initio all the Mass Deletions by herein Nominator: to wit -
CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);
Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:
i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.


ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;
ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;
At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;
Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence  : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:


i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC
ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;
vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;
  • Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions in My Talk Pages by Herein Mass Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited a) Legal, b) Moral Reasons and in the c) LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia

  • CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;
  • However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;
  • On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;
  • When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;
  • I am 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;
  • It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Starter of Mass Deletion Requests, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:
  • If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;
  • Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;
  • As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator, I underscore, for clarity's sake - Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator are NULL and VOID ab Initio as they are a) Unlawful under Philippine Laws, and b) contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator is a Virtual and Desperate Attempt to Erase Valued Images or Most Important Cultural Heritage Treasures of the Philippines from Commons Ownership without any Valid Legal Basis, but just mere copy paste citations or Provisos of Laws, without any Jurisprudential Support - to be specific - rather trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted ...
  • In-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions;
  • WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Mass Nominations for Deletions, including your legal sayings without any Jurisprudential either Phil or US are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in Philippines Law and Fact;
  • In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions of Herein Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited Legal, Moral Reasons and in the LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or delete; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objections EVER to the Requested Mass Non-Stop Deletions of herein Nominator and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Mirrored reply @Judgefloro: that's wrong. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention. Accordingly, all copyrights exist from the moment a building or sculpture becomes fixed (completed/unveiled). That is what is indicated at the Berne Convention, of which the Philippines joined in 1951. And take note, in their webpage IPOPHL still said that "Recordation or deposit of your works isn’t necessary but authors and artists may opt to execute an affidavit of ownership with the National Library or the IPOPHL for the issuance of recordation and deposit." It's still optional. And I believe that even courts will say that, because removing the attainment of copyright from the moment of creation and reistating formalities like you claim is equivalent to the country's breach of the treaty it joined in 1951 and our violation of WIPO agreements. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention, and hence all types of formalities like you claim have become optional. Instead of rants, just contact the copyright holders (the architects) and ask if they want and agree to license your images of their buildings under commercial licensing. See COM:OTRS. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the phils and no permission from the heirs of ARCHITECT LEANDRO V. LOCSIN, died 1994. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Andrew_the_Apostle_Church Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Because No Copyright whatsoever exists or is in favor of any artist who creates anything in a Catholic Church; reason is the Ecclesiastical and International Law agreements and Conventions regarding ownership of Church property and accessories in the titular Roman Catholic Bishop or Bishop or in this case the Archbishop of Manila Pabillo; when an artist creates he transfers by operation of Canon Law vis-à-vis exception to Copyright Law all his rights for he has been paid as Commissioned by the Bishop Titular;

Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos

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)[reply]
  •  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

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)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

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.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;
  • 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) 08:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit. Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg

[edit]

While there is now a pending bill in the Congress for the inclusion of FOP in the copyright law, IPOPHL-BCRR said in the Feb. 10 IPOPHL-Wikimedia dialogue that the current prevailing status is "FOP is not provided in the copyright law" (as the copyright law is a statutory right and provisions like FOP cannot be established by mere legal interpretations). As such permission from the heirs of Architect Leandro V. Locsin (d. 1994) is required for now to have these CC/PD-licensed images of Locsin's architectural work hosted here, perferably via COM:OTRS email correspondence. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);
Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:
i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.
ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;
ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;
At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;
Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence  : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:
i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC
ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;
vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;
  • Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per [2]. Yann (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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:Temple of Leah

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the philippines. No permission from architects and sculptors of this shrine that started in 2012. https://news.abs-cbn.com/life/09/06/17/look-temple-of-leah-the-taj-mahal-of-cebu

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit. Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Temple of Leah

[edit]

Reviewing this case. Unfortunately, this ABS-CBN article on this landmark is legitimate. The landmark opened in 2012. There is no FOP in the Philippines, and while the proposed amendment to the copyright law (with the amendment containing an FOP provision) is now pending, IPOPHL-Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights said that regular rules will still remain: a need of permission from the copyright holder. Thus COM:OTRS authorization from the architect of the building and the artists of the artworks in the landmark is required in order for these commercially-licensed (CC-licensed) images to be hosted on Commons.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Hi JWilz12345. Is there a chance to transfer my file such as File:TEMPLE OF LEAH.jpg to local Wikipedia before it was deleted? Lucky Ambago Purok Otso (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Cebu Taoist Temple

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the phils and no permission from the archite ts. The temple is built by Cebu's substantial Chinese community in 1972. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cebu_Taoist_Temple

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Nominator was blocked temporarily in September due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit? Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Cebu Taoist Temple

[edit]

While there is now a pending bill in the Congress for the inclusion of FOP in the copyright law, IPOPHL-BCRR said in the Feb. 10 IPOPHL-Wikimedia dialogue that the current prevailing status is "FOP is not provided in the copyright law" (as the copyright law is a statutory right and provisions like FOP cannot be established by mere legal interpretations). As such permission from the architect of this temple and also sculptors of the associated sculptures here is required for now to have these CC/PD-licensed images hosted here, perferably via COM:OTRS email correspondence.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per [3]. Yann (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:North Dumpling Island flag.png

[edit]

Flag not what it claims to be. Is actually the flag of Hutt River micronation. CzarJobKhaya (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, I got confused with the Hutt River flag while uploading the files. Please delete to upload the corresponding one. And thanks to CzarJobKhaya for pointing out the problem. ----JuanAntonioRios19 (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 14:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:234 airborn RGT logo, Russian army.jpg

[edit]

There is no confirmation that this is an official emblem of a military unit. --NoFrost (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Be-more-chill-will.jpg

[edit]

Previously published elsewhere on the web (e.g. [4]); no evidence for permission; uploader also claims to be a different photographer in this upload. HaeB (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Iconsquare1382315287-152566-JoeIconisphotocreditStephanieWessels.webp

[edit]

Previously published elsewhere on the web (e.g. [5]); no evidence for permission; uploader also claims to be a different photographer in this upload. HaeB (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Albert & Tom- twitter-350.png

[edit]

This looks like a photoshop mashup. No exif, probably OoS Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Jones Bridge, Manila

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the philippines and no permission from deisgner JERRY AZUCAR of Las Casas Filipinas de Acuzar to release images of his creatively designed lamp poles in commercial friendly licensing. "He was hired by the City’s administrator as consultant." As said in http://tempo.com.ph/2019/10/18/new-jones-bridge-lamp-posts-wows-commuters/

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily in September due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit? Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Geçmişten ,Geleceğe, hiçbir engelle karşılaşmadan Özgün İçerik üretme ve bunları anında paylaşma gücü sağlamaktır.png

[edit]

Not sure what this is but it looks like a very amateurish logo. Not sure about EDUSE? Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Liwasang Bonifacio 1

[edit]

No freedom of panorama and no permission from the heir of GUILLERMO TOLENTINO, Died 1976. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liwasang_Bonifacio

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law
DE MINIMIS and the 4 Years statute of limitations bars the Deletion of these photos
 Keep Sec. 176. Works of the Government. - Chapter IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit.
  •  Keep Keep Because the Tourism Office of Manila when I visited the Offices, expressly gave me permission to take photos of their monuments and memorials, like this and their public properties; this is a Local tourist attraction, Local Government Property; and only the heirs of the sculptors or architects may question any FOP infringement in the Special Courts, as strictly provided by the 2019 New S.C. Circular, implementing the Copyright and Intellectual Property laws in the Civil Code; with more reason, any editor here has no Legal rights whatsoever to question any Uploading; besides, the Aguinaldo Monument like Rizal Monuments in the Philippines and Cavite are owned by the National or here the Local Government Code; hence, under this Special Law, the Artists alleged creators have no Copyright rights since they were paid by the Municipal Government; in addition the façade or exterior is unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of National or Local Government which granted me express permission to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantage in the future elections, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; 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 Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
  • All these photos are DE MINIMIS and as I repeatedly and legally wrote - Courts and Laws do not deal with trifles or nonsense suits or crying by those who do not have any right or LOCUS Standi to question these Commons photos;
  • Presidential Decree No. 49, s. 1972 “Decree on Intellectual Property.” Section 58. No damages may be recovered under this Decree after four years from the time the cause of action arose.
  • rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
  • De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;
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)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
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.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullible and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page; 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 sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment 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). Only 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) will help prevent these and more deletions. When will this meeting / dialogue happen is not certain, however, and I don't know if it is acceptable to leave FOP deletion requests open for weeks or months, considering that FOP won't be implemented instantly (just because of this meeting), but that it will only come into fruition when Republic Act No. 8293 is amended (hopefully). However, when will this amendment come, I cannot say yet, since 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. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily in September due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit? Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Liwasang Bonifacio 2

[edit]

Revisiting this case. Unfortunately, Guillermo Tolentino is identified to be its sculptor per w:Liwasang Bonifacio, and the statue won't be PD until 2027 (50+1 years after 1976, the year he died). Unless the country introduces commercially-permissive FOP. "Extinctive prescription" is only relevant after the deletion (according to Clindberg's reply at his talk page), as the continued existence means continuous exploitation. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Guillermo Tolentino.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Government works that are commissioned still enjoy the copyright from the creator. See also COM:CRT/Philippines#Government works. 10:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City) rubin16 (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one problem @Rubin16: . The statue was erected in 1963, and there's no information on whether Tolentino registered his work. Before 1972 works had to be registered (and registration provides copyright duration of 30 years, see COM:CRT/Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). The images can be kept if Tolentino did not register his statue, but there's no reliable website listing all copyright registrations for pre-1972 works here in the Philippines. For government-commissioned works, unless there's "a written stipulation" that explicitly transfers all rights of the sculptor to the government, copyright is still held by the side of Tolentino. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions in My Talk Pages by Herein Mass Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited a) Legal, b) Moral Reasons and in the c) LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia

  • CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;
  • However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;
  • On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;
  • When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;
  • I am 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;
  • It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Starter of Mass Deletion Requests, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:
  • If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;
  • Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;
  • As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator, I underscore, for clarity's sake - Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator are NULL and VOID ab Initio as they are a) Unlawful under Philippine Laws, and b) contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator is a Virtual and Desperate Attempt to Erase Valued Images or Most Important Cultural Heritage Treasures of the Philippines from Commons Ownership without any Valid Legal Basis, but just mere copy paste citations or Provisos of Laws, without any Jurisprudential Support - to be specific - rather trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted ...
  • In-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions;
  • WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Mass Nominations for Deletions, including your legal sayings without any Jurisprudential either Phil or US are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in Philippines Law and Fact;
  • In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions of Herein Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited Legal, Moral Reasons and in the LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or delete; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objections EVER to the Requested Mass Non-Stop Deletions of herein Nominator and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 07:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:U.P. Town Center

[edit]

A work by archi firm Benoy in 2013. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.P._Town_Center No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from Benoy architects to host photos of their work UP Town center under free non-trad licensing

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law: DE MINIMIS: and the 4 Years statute of limitations bars the Deletion of these photos

 Keep U.P. Town Center is a commercial establishment although managed by Ayala Malls, it is part of UP Diliman hence OWNED by the Government or Govt controlled corporation or institution; and it is a) a Tourist attraction or b) interesting point c) commercial business building; NO COPYRIGHT whatsoever exists and the photos are beyond the scope of Copyright law; all Government properties are not covered by Copyright Law even if any sculptor has been paid or engaged therein;
 Keep Sec. 176. Works of the Government. - Chapter IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit.
  • All these photos are DE MINIMIS and as I repeatedly and legally wrote - Courts and Laws do not deal with trifles or nonsense suits or crying by those who do not have any right or LOCUS Standi to question these Commons photos;
  • Prescription of 4 years Copyright Law bars and estops anybody from questioning copyright infringement, if ever, and assuming ex gratia argumenti only : hence on October 2020, Prescription Dismisses Any and All Mass Deletion Requests on these photos;
  • rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
  • De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions

May I, if you please, interject an important matter but off-tangent here: I have still too many pictures to upload, hence I could not yet put inputs and discussions in the more than 50 Mass Deletions of my Photos in User:RamonFVelasquez; may I underscore as Legal Impediment of Deletion the clear and unequivocal S. C. New 2019 Circular on Copyright and Intellectual Property amending the previous CJ circulars - this is for the Special Courts created; in the Hierarchy -a) the highest is this Circular - which puts a Legal Bar by virtue of the 4 years Prescription under the Civil Code and specifically the Copyright Law and Intellectual Property Laws in many Code of the Philippines; b) second is S. C. Jurisprudence on the specific issue of Uploading in Commons, Flickr etc on FOP c) DOJ Secretary Opinion on FOP if not declined d) IPO New Director Opinion on my 2 Letters if ever issued e) secondary authority from CA here or USA S.C. Jurisprudence and then Federal Rules Jurisprudence like the Circuit Courts of CA; f) Learned treatises like that which I cited, Sycip law office inter alia; I opine that this New SC Circular on 4 years prescription (from Uploading by RamonFVelasquez, my Photos taken by him and me and uploaded edited by said Wiki Break User; that is, on 2015 more or less, all photos of mine there can no longer be deleted - since each Mass Deletion Request falls squarely under the 4 corners of 2012 Cybercrime law cognizable by the DOJ per the NBI Cybercrime Division) so all the Mass Deletion Requests of the Smart One thereat Ramon, tagged since September until today, should be Denied outright and I note that the Smart One has been repeatedly ordered to stop the Mass Deletions; I am just waiting for the Right Time to file the proper Pleadings ... on the matter; due to the Declaration against Interest of the Smart One and tons of Evidence of Cyber Crime Mass Deletion); I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus I repeat 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 ... thanks
Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos
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)[reply]
  •  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

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)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

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.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;
  • 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) 08:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily in September due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit? Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:U.P. Town Center

[edit]

According to this article by indesignlive.sg, this architectural work was designed by Benoy Architects. As FOP is not currently provided in our copyright law according to IPOPHL-BCRR, permission from the architectural firm is required.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);
Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:
i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.


ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;
ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;
At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;
Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence  : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:


i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC
ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;
vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;
  • Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Monastery of Transfiguration, Malaybalay 1

[edit]

No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the heirs of architects to host photos of copyrighted phil buildings and artistic works under free non-trad licensing. This is a 1983 architecture by Leandro Locsin, dead in 1994. https://news.abs-cbn.com/life/04/13/17/monastery-of-the-transfiguration-a-place-for-reflection-in-bukidnon

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily in September due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit? Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Monastery of Transfiguration, Malaybalay 2

[edit]

Unfortunately, this building fails public domain criteria for Philippine buildings (built in 1983 and designed by w:Leandro Locsin). As there is still no freedom of panorama in the Philippines (when will the amendment to the copyright law containing the FOP provision be passed), the regular rules apply: permission and consent to the uploaders' choice of licensing from the heirs of Architect Locsin is required. Since I don't have such authorization, I will nominate also the images I sourced from Flickr through Flickr2Commons (undelete only if FOP becomes part of our copyright law).

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 07:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SM City North Edsa City Center.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the philippines and no permission from architect firm Arquitectonica for licensing this image through free licensing. A 1985 building Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily in September due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit? Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SM City North Edsa City Center.jpg

[edit]

Reviewing this landmark. Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia article states that it was first completed in 1985, though it underwent various expansion and renovation, substantially altering the architecture. Moreover, there's no freedom of panorama in the Philippines for architectural and artistic works created by living or recently-dead architects and artists. Permission from the architect of the current building of SM City North EDSA city center is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Santa Ana Public Market, Manila

[edit]

Based on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Judgefloro#Files_uploaded_by_Judgefloro_(talk_%C2%B7_contribs)_2, this is the identical subject as the eliminated fotos. No freedom of pano in the phils, no permission from architects, and the market is certainly not older than 90s.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law: DE MINIMIS: and the 4 Years statute of limitations bars the Deletion of these photos

  •  Keep Keep Because the Tourism Office of Santa Ana when I visited the Barangay Hall, expressly gave me permission to take photos of their monuments and memorials, like this and their public properties; this is a Local tourist attraction, Local Government Property; and only the heirs of the sculptors or architects may question any FOP infringement in the Special Courts, as strictly provided by the 2019 New S.C. Circular, implementing the Copyright and Intellectual Property laws in the Civil Code; with more reason, any editor here has no Legal rights whatsoever to question any Uploading; besides, the Aguinaldo Monument like Rizal Monuments in the Philippines and Cavite are owned by the National or here the Local Government Code; hence, under this Special Law, the Artists alleged creators have no Copyright rights since they were paid by the Municipal Government; in addition the façade or exterior is unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of National or Local Government which granted me express permission to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantage in the future elections, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; 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 Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
  • Presidential Decree No. 49, s. 1972 “Decree on Intellectual Property.” Section 58. No damages may be recovered under this Decree after four years from the time the cause of action arose.
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)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

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.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullible and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page; 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) 08:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily in September due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit? Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Santa Ana Public Market, Manila

[edit]

A modern market building. As FOP is not yet provided by our copyright law (while the bill to amend it is still pending), regular rules apply according to IPOPHL-BCRR. This means permission and licensing consent from the architects is required.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);
Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:
i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.


ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;
ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;
At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;
Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence  : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:


i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC
ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;
vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;
  • Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:National Arts Center of the Philippines

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the phils and no permission from the heirs of ARCHITECT LEANDRO LOCSIN in licensing images of his architectural artwork under commercial-friendly licensing. Died 1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leandro_Locsin

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


--There is still an discussion about this. Please refrain from deleting pictures until the community reached a final decision. --Nickrds09 (Talk Page) 09:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  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 @Nickrds09: , there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines (the current position of Commons:FOP Philippines). Only 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) will help prevent these and more deletions. When will this meeting / dialogue happen is not certain, however, and I don't know if it is acceptable to leave FOP deletion requests open for weeks or months, considering that FOP won't be implemented instantly (just because of this meeting), but that it will only come into fruition when Republic Act No. 8293 is amended (hopefully). However, when will this amendment come, I cannot say yet, since 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. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily in September due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit? Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:National Arts Center of the Philippines

[edit]

While there is now a pending bill in the Congress for the inclusion of FOP in the copyright law, IPOPHL-BCRR said in the Feb. 10 IPOPHL-Wikimedia dialogue that the current prevailing status is "FOP is not provided in the copyright law" (as the copyright law is a statutory right and provisions like FOP cannot be established by mere interpretations). As such permission from the heirs of Architect Leandro V. Locsin (d. 1994) is required for now to have these CC/PD-licensed images of Locsin's artistic work hosted here, perferably via COM:OTRS email correspondence.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Badge Мга.jpg

[edit]

It's a derivative work of a 3D object that is uploaded from Internet with no photographer's permission. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cbf brazilian championship trophy 02.svg

[edit]

This file violates copyright by representing the design of the trophy made by the Brazilian artist Holoassy Lins de Albuquerque (source). Just look at the similarity of this with the 2008 trophy won by São Paulo FC (source). Therefore, I consider this derivative work without any indication or permission information under copyright. Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete: File:CBF - Brazilian Championship.svg. Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Αρχαία Κόρινθος 1.jpg

[edit]

unidentifiable place, very probably not Corinth; uploader has misplaced another photo with almost the same title (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%CE%91%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%B1_%CE%9A%CF%8C%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%B8%CE%BF%CF%82_2.jpg); unusable Phso2 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LaurenFaustSPFF.png

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can crop out the toys this evening. --Slashme (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slashme any chance on that cropping? TY. Missvain (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Missvain sorry, I completely forgot! Will do it in the next hour or so. --Slashme (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, crop done, now it's just a boring headshot ;-] --Slashme (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Missvain (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LaurenFaustSPFF.png

[edit]

If the file was cropped per COM:TOYS, I guess "the previous version must be deleted". (BTW a good headshot of a notable person.) E4024 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: Already asked for revision deletion, no need to nominate it once more. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not notice that. Close this if you deem OK. --E4024 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tom4.png

[edit]

This file is low resolution and has little metadata. A potential derivative work, and not own work as claimed, although subject's webpage features another image. If this file is a derivative work, the COM:OTRS process should be followed to ascertain permission to host this file on this project. Vycl1994 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Fitindia at 07:10, 11 Dezember 2020 UTC: No permission since 3 December 2020 --Krdbot 14:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Shilpi Sharma.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a selfie taken by the actress herself, requires COM:OTRS permission. ƏXPLICIT 06:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Fitindia at 07:07, 11 Dezember 2020 UTC: No permission since 3 December 2020 --Krdbot 14:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:454-lundqvist-twitter.jpg

[edit]

Taken from twitter per description, no exif, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Fitindia at 06:41, 11 Dezember 2020 UTC: No permission since 3 December 2020 --Krdbot 14:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by Petr Tomasovsky~commonswiki (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These 3 photos are credited to Dan Krywoň in Muzea československého opevnění. Úsek Moravská Ostrava a Opava brochure (2003, ISBN 80-902949-9-5)

This photo has the same visual style as File:LO vz.37 (MO S-19).jpg and File:MO S-19(c).jpg and also has no metadata.

These 5 photos has the same camera in metadata as File:LO vz.37 (MO S-19).jpg and also very similar date.

Harold (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 uploaded by NatsuHaru5746 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All these diverse logos from separate companies cannot all be own works. Also, most of them meet COM:TOO and the companies can thus claim copyright on them.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, it seems like the "perform batch task" tool does not recognize all of this user's uploads, but the concerns mentioned above also apply to:

Perhaps to the file below as well but unlike the above this one might not be copyrightable in the US; unfortunately I don't know about Japanese copyright standards.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Files like logos of companies David Production, Signal.MD, Okuruto Noboru, Ashi Productions, Satelight, Front Wing, and ect. are by default public domain by not meeting the threshold of originality by Japanese standards. This standard is held by the idea that simple geometric shapes and texts, such as in these logos, are not subject to protection by copyright law. These files in particular are simply added under an incorrect license. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sarcataclysmal, at least some of these are below TOO in Japan and the US, and therefore not copyrightable. This batch should be handled with discretion by the deleting admin (many of the ones below TOO have already had their license info changed to something more proper). — Goszei (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted 5, kept the others Per nomination. According to be copyrightable a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation (from Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Japan#Threshold_of_originality. The examples on that page are very simple indeed. I looked carefully to the images and only when I was personally convinced of artistic appearance I deleted the image. In other cases they were kept. Elly (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:EduardoMoscovis2020.jpg

[edit]

Although the video is licensed under {{YouTube CC-BY}}, this particular clip (starts at 7:51) comes from Netflix and the copyright belongs with the company, not the "Cris e Panda" channel.

ƏXPLICIT 06:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? the video is a interview for the channel on youtube and the name "Netflix bom dia, verônica" is just to named, this not meaning from Netflix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrunoHomble (talk • contribs)

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close again. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:OSU lazer song selection.jpg

[edit]

While the app is MIT licensed, the music covers are non-free. Unless if the background is dimmed, the image is not freely licensed for use on Wikipedia. Aasim 18:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, cropping this and reverse searching provided no relevant results. This, combined with Commons:De minimis#Guidelines, suggests to me that this is de minimis, since the original image cannot be easily identified from this screenshot.
Results only came from using the name of the song and the name of the map's author. Even then, the lack of reverse search results is itself surprising. I found this link to a wallpaper site, but this was clearly not uploaded by the original artists or rights-holder. It was uploaded there 20 April 2018. This is before it was (apparently) submitted to the Osu! website 2 June 2018. As background, Osu!'s "maps" are fairly complicated and can include original art and animation, meaning they would reasonably take more than two months to be created, played, and only later formally submitted. For that reason, I don't think the date discrepancy can be taken as evidence of anything either way. I found one other result which was likely a red herring and otherwise no results for this wallpaper. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the image is not identifiable unless external sources are used (navigation to the song on the OSU website) should qualify it as Commons:De minimis. Scaledish (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok my Google Images started working again... Oldest version of the pic I could fine was https://twitter.com/yomi43dtm/status/985434045008904192/photo/1 but it's cropped. I think deleting this and reuploading a blank installation of lazer or showing the main menu instead would be a better idea. The tweet credits @somei_ysnr but their twitter is private. Nathanielcwm (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per discussion, I consider the images as shown also de minimis. The twitter image @Nathanielcwm: found is a derivative work of a wallpaper with "free download", see for instance here (close your eyes for the advertisements) Elly (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/11/23&oldid=581459867"