Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bahay Tsinoy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files in Category:Bahay Tsinoy

[edit]

Bldg dates to 1999 and designers most likely alive. No freedom of panorama in phils.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The building looks much older than that - where's the evidence that it was recently built?? No such evidence is cited in the English Wikipedia article about the building; the relevant parts of the article are marked "citation needed". Also, if the building is a reconstruction of an older building, eg one destroyed during World War II, then the copyright of the design would be considerably older than 1999. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bahnfrend: the no FoP in the Philippines matter was raised (anew) at the Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright, in light with the recent DR's made by this newly-registered user targeting various Philippine buildings and sculptures. I hereby request admins to put this and other DR's on hold until this matter has concluded meaningfully. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the Supreme Court takes the robust and legally impeccable view that if you are alleging breach of copyright, you have to prove breach. On that view, if you are alleging that an image of a building should be deleted from Commons, then it should be up to you to produce evidence of any copyright, and not simply claim that the building was built in a particular year. That sounds appropriate to me, particularly where, as in this case, the building is of an old-fashioned design. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahnfrend: you are misguided by filipino wikipedians. They are trying to use two unrelated court decisions as defense for why photos of architecture, sculptures, and the like are not infringing moral rights of their creators and designers. The case decisions G.R. NO. 161295, June 29, 2005 and G.R. No. 195835, March 14, 2016 have nothing to do with architecture and sculptures. Thw former is about "Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile" a plastic utilitarian article. The latter is about a steel product and steel manfacture. None is about architecture, sculptures, monuments, paintings, and others.

I will reiterate that copyright subsists in all phil architecture and sculptiral works. This is testified at 172.2. Of section 172, part 4 of the copyright law RA8293 """Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a)""" as a building from 1999 as claimed by wikipedia, this is a recent bldg. Architecture form or style is very irrelevant at this point. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:56, 29 September 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 @Bahnfrend: , there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines (the current position of Commons:FOP Philippines). A potential meeting or dialogue between the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) and the Wikimedia Foundation (with freedom of panorama as the principal agenda, as based on IPOPHL's reply to the latest email sent by Higad Rail Fan) might help in introducing freedom of panorama in the Philippines, through an amendment to Republic Act No. 8293 (hopefully). When will both this meeting/dialogue and amendment happen, I cannot say yet however, as there's no meeting / dialogue as of this writing yet. I will also leave the final decision to admins in closing this and all other pending nominations at Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Legal Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ...
  •  Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It is sad but all sources that I found say that the building was opened in 1999 and it took 5 years to build it. You can check this one, for example, used in zh.wiki. So, all to be deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Bahay_Tsinoy&oldid=568898142"