Commons:Deletion requests/File:00905jfRoosevelt Quezon Avenue Fisher Mall Quezon Cityfvf 29.JPG
Derivative work/s (an image/s) of an ad/s and/or poster/s. Such objects are copyrightable as said by Ms. Emmelina Masanque (Assistant Division Chief, Information Dissemination and Training Division of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau, charged with the intellectual property education and awareness programmes of the IPOPHL) who was one of the principal guests at the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR). These fall under category "pictorial illustrations and advertisements" (point 40:27 of the webinar). There is no mention of either "threshold of originality" or "de minimis", only that if it involves the hardworking efforts of the creators (here the visual/graphics artists), and that these are intended to promote a particular brand or trademark, these are automatically copyrighted from the moment of their creation. Discerning from the discussion, the creators have the exclusive economic rights for reproduction, transformation, distribution, and display of the said object/s. Thus these images infringe the copyright of the visual artists. A formal permission and authorization from the artists (not from the owner of the posters / ads) is required, preferrably through Commons:OTRS email system, so as to release their poster/s and/or ad/s under free licensing or public domain on Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your visit and messages ... I leave these grey area finer points of law on FOP as I ponder to be, to the consensus of Commons more expert editors on this; although I opine that, even if those for deletion editors would, only only and only those heirs, assigns and creators have locus standi or the right to question these matter of FOP in Court or other forum including Commons and other media; as the law and jurisprudence remains that - what is not prohibited clearly in the 4 corners of the Copyright law, is permitted and one or all have to wait for the SC final say on the matter;
I humbly reiterate my request for filing of the IPO or DOJ Letter on FOP since with bated breath, I am too excited to still wait for the Replies of these 2 gentlemen on Commons FOP pending Deletions or Undeletions: it is requested that pending this, the deletion be PUT on Hold
[edit]
- Addendum: in my first afternoon as RTC Judge of Br. 73, Malabon, NCJR, I announced that I will resolve cases in just 3 months in accordance with the 1998 New Circulars of the Court; further, I stated that ahead of my times as Judge, I will use the USA dispute resolutions arbitrations and alternative methods to eliminate long court proceedings; now, all these ADRs and pre-trial modes akin to Blended Learning in Modules are fruits of my prophecy; but, but and but, the webinars are just time being matters of law and not jurisprudence; maybe the gullible who would-be followers of Mass Deletions teleserye will get and taste this cake and cite them to Rolly-Siony wipe out by push button deletions the Litany of Mass Deletion photos in my Talk Page by a creator of an account with a single purpose of Cyber stalking or even 2012 criminal activity;
- In additions, may I reiterate my plea to Commons editors to finalize and finish the draft letter to submit the same to the IPO or DOJ for issuance of Reply, to put a rest on all these, instead of Undelitions which are so hard and time wasting; with these I respectfully submit to sound discretion of older editors very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- reclose. --Minoraxtalk 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
