Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sm megamall.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
Per COM:FOP#Philippines. According to en:SM Megamall, the building appears to be from 1991.Stefan4 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep per COM:TOO. I can hardly see what is copyrightable about this building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- All of those examples are from France and are based on guessing what the words "without a particular or original character" in COM:FOP#France mean. The formulation is very vague, so it is entirely possible that some or all of those DRs got a wrong closure. Also, the threshold of originality in the Philippines may differ from that in France. Do you have any examples from the Philippines? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- As Philippine copyright law is based on US law, I would imagine threshold of originality would be defined similarly (the US has a pretty high bar). The Philippines just doesn't have enough case law to decide it one way or another. On Commons, if we are not sure about something because of insufficient research on our part, we play it safe and delete, but if we're not sure about something because it actually is pending case law, we keep. Take, for example, the URAA pictures that were provisionally accepted before the court ruling came out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just found the following in Sec. 186: "Copyright in a work of architecture shall include the right to control the erection of any building which reproduces the whole or a substantial part of the work either in its original form or in any form recognizably derived from the original: Provided, That the copyright in any such work shall not include the right to control the reconstruction or rehabilitation in the same style as the original of a building to which that copyright relates." While not directly related, I think this implies some sort of threshold. Think about it: Suppose someone built a building shaped like a grey cube, with no features, nothing at all. If someone else came along and built a grey cube-shaped featureless building (which is almost identical to the first by necessity of the description), is that a copyright violation? You could say, well, it's almost identical, and hence "recognizably derived from the original." But an idea that can be expressed in a short phrase like "grey cube-shaped featureless building" is merely a style, and so we have a contradiction. So we conclude that there ought to be some threshold of originality, only above which is an idea separable from its expression. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that quote looks interesting. There is also another thing: COM:CRT#The Philippines tells that artistic works are copyrighted for life+50 years whereas applied art only is copyrighted for creation+25 years. Would a building count as an artistic work or as applied art? It doesn't affect anything here, but it is certainly relevant for other buildings. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have always been using creation+25, as you can see the parameters I have been putting in w:Template:FoP-USonly on my transfers of Philippine building photos from here to enwiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that quote looks interesting. There is also another thing: COM:CRT#The Philippines tells that artistic works are copyrighted for life+50 years whereas applied art only is copyrighted for creation+25 years. Would a building count as an artistic work or as applied art? It doesn't affect anything here, but it is certainly relevant for other buildings. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- All of those examples are from France and are based on guessing what the words "without a particular or original character" in COM:FOP#France mean. The formulation is very vague, so it is entirely possible that some or all of those DRs got a wrong closure. Also, the threshold of originality in the Philippines may differ from that in France. Do you have any examples from the Philippines? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per KoH. Yann (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
SM malls are considered as distinct architectural works in the Philippines (and architecture is treated as a form of fine arts here rather than applied art as in the West). This particular section of SM Megamall is the original Buildings A and B, which were designed by Architect Antonio Sindiong who died in 1996. There's no freedom of panorama yet in the Philippines, and COM:OTRS permission from Sindiong's heirs is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
