Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mlqmark2jf.JPG

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:Mlqmark2jf.JPG

DW of the plaque (NoFop in the Philippines). No justification why the copyright of the writer is not to be respected or not existent. Copyright in The_Philippines is 50 years pma (if I read correctly). Saibo (Δ) 02:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Er... the writer? It's a self-taken photo of a public monument! You might as well ask why no one lists all the engineers who took part in all the buildings in a panorama of Paris or the people who stenciled the lettering on their facades.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the writer - the author of the text on the plaque.
I will try to explain why you see many other similar (as you have enumerated) photos: Other countries have FOP and a panorama renders single objects as DM frequently. I suggest you read the pages I have linked. Commons:Images containing text may also be useful.
Or do we argue that the text is a pure list of facts (matches the lower part - but not so the upper part) and therefore {{PD-ineligible}}? --Saibo (Δ) 02:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Architecture and applied art (Chapter II, Section 172) in the Philippines retain copyright for only 25 years after creation. (Chapter XVI, Section 213.4 of Republic Act No. 8293). This is also not a lawfully published literary piece. Even if it was, Chapter XVI, Section 213.3 states that for anonymous or psuedonymous works, the protection is at 50 years again from the first lawful publication. 1948 (the date that plaque was erected) is 64 years ago.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Text is neither architecture nor applied art, is it?
This isn't published? Em, well, I it is resting in public. ;-) (and in your anonymous work comment you say that it is published, too).
So you claim this is an anonymous work? Is there any evidence for this? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the author? If you can find evidence that it is not an anonymous work, only then should we be considering this. It's not signed, is it? --Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is the other way round - read Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. And see e.g. Template:Anonymous-EU/en "make sure the author never claimed authorship." --Saibo (Δ) 03:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Project_scope#Evidence includes as far as can reasonably be determined. Expecting the photographer to name the author of a public commemorative text in a plaque erected 64 years ago is certainly not reasonable is it?

See the opening lines of Republic Act No. 8293 which defines the terms. Published works (emphasis mine) are: "works, which, with the consent of the authors, are made available to the public by wire or wireless means in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and time individually chosen by them." Since I can't read the plaque anytime and anywhere I want, it is not lawfully published.

Anonymous and pseudonymous works are: "articles and other writings published without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms, unless the contrary appears, or the pseudonyms or adopted name leaves no doubts as to the author’s identity, or if the author of the anonymous works discloses his identity." The text is indeed legally anonymous. And yeah, even your example of the EU definition of anonymous has a provision of as far as possible.

How far do we have to go off the rocker this time? Don't tell me you expect the uploader to have to hunt down the names of the craftsmen who molded those nails as well. Or hey, what about the guy who designed the font?--Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If your assumption is correct that a public, permanent display does not constitute a "publishing" then you cannot refer to a expiry of copyrights after anonymous publication, can you? You make conflicting claims here. Regarding the "as far as possible" - it is before the word "and" - not after. Regarding anonymously published: the author could have been on a public stage when the monument was unveiled... The nails are usually {{PD-ineligible}} - a nail is no sculpture. ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 11:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What? You do realize "as far as possible" is on the EU copyright law, don't you? EU... Philippines... Hellooo? Aside from that, Commons:Project_scope#Evidence states: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined...". And your statement: "...the author could have been on a public stage" is an example of an extremely unreasonable (and unverifiable) assumption. How are we supposed to find that out? Even if he did, that doesn't exactly satisfy the provisions for disclosing without leaving any doubts as to author identity in Philippine copyright law.

And of course they're conflicting, there's no "therefore" anywhere on my post. I'm covering all your assumptions. This isn't a sculpture, it's a plaque - despite the ornate doodads on it and the flowery text, it's a functional sign identifying a site of historic interest, and thus applied art not published text. If you continue to insist it's published literary art then it's still anonymous which would mean its copyright has long expired. I know full well the copyright laws of the Philippines suck, but this is ridiculous nitpicking that can't in any way be viewed as constructive. Go delete something that actually needs unquestionable deletion instead of wikilawyering the deletion of something you're not even sure deserves it. To put it simply, you're bending over backwards even just to nominate this for deletion. May I ask why?--Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the Philippines is not in the EU. :-) It was an example - and we both referred to it as example. No need to suggest that I do not know that Ph. is not in the EU...

Proofing anonymity is not easy and in most cases impossible - you are right. For that reason e.g. de.wikipedia simply doesn't accept works under this rule.

Deletion requests are there to discuss the copyright - which can end in a deletion. So you think all deletion requests are useless and we only should be deleting clear {{Copyvio}}s? Well, well...

Nitpicking and wikilawyering? Thanks - I am out here. Attack someone else. This is a good faith DR (which is disrespected by you) and you may note that I did also invest enough time in it. Explain why this file is no DW and we can keep it. --Saibo (Δ) 14:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well what would you call it then? You don't even have a solid reason as to why you nominated this in the first place. You're calling a sign a literary work of art, you're claiming the author was known and can be reasonably identified, and you're assuming he died after 1961. Those are a lot of assumptions, none of which can be proven nor do they fall within common sense. I already gave you the Philippine legal definitions of what qualifies for which protection, including a very clear definition of what is considered published work and anonymous work, and here you're still using EU and de.wikipedia as justification?

"Deletion requests are there to discuss the copyright" <- yeah right. You mean claiming that the "author could have been on a public stage" is "discussing copyright"? I don't get it. A good faith deletion request is one in which the nominator didn't already make up his mind that this file is copyrighted. Which you seem to have already done so, despite evidence otherwise. You're like those lawyers who sue the government just to test the system and a way of stoking their egos if they do win. I honestly don't even care if the image is kept or not but this kind of questionable deletionist behavior is simply ridiculous and something I see all the time. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 01:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep. Obsidian makes strong enough point that copyright has expired. --P199 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted: No prove this is an anonymous work. A contrario, public monuments are generally by known architects, selected by the city council. In such context, make an enquiry to get the author is as simple as contact the city council, and so doesn't qualify as an anonymous work. Dereckson (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)