Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City)

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:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City) 1

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. The artist, Guillermo Tolentino, died in 1976 so this work will not be in the public domain in the Philippines until 2026.

Kelly (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork has no copyright at it was commissioned by the Philippine government [1]. As per Philippine Intellectual Property laws "176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines." Namayan (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Namayan Alan (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2015 (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:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City) 2

[edit]

No freedom of phils. Artist is guillermo tolentino who died in 1976. Copyrighted til 2026

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous rationale as a government-commissioned work. As per Philippine Intellectual Property laws "176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines."Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bonifacio Day 2017 113017 Bonifacio Day (14).jpg in particular qualifies for de minimis. The main subject in these are the two government officials.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hariboneagle927: nevertheless the no FoP in the Philippines matter was recently 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 new user targeting various Philippine buildings and sculptures. I hereby request admins to put this and other DR's on hold until this matter has settled. 12:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Paging @Lymantria, Namayan, and De728631: (those either involved in the deletion of two files I requested to bevrestored before, and an admin who wrote their input at the undeletion request) for inputs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Also @Alan: who closed the first version of this DR 02:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I deleted a similar photograph, it was in a DR without mentioning of the commissioning of the government. I do see that as new information that could change opinion. Lymantria (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: I searched for some sources since the link given by Namayan was dead. The following are some interesting sources:

Caloocan, which used to be a barrio in Tondo, Manila, was the center of the Philippine revolution that broke out in August 1896. Public Act No. 2760 of 1918 and Public Act No. 3602 of 1929 then authorized the erection of the Bonifacio Monument and characterized the structure as a “national monument to honor the hero’s historic contribution to the birth of the nation.” This bronze and granite masterpiece features a 45-foot obelisk topped by a figure of the “winged victory” by sculptor Guillermo Tolentino. The figure represents the triumph of the Filipinos over Spanish forces.

- The important excerpts are too long, I can't copy and paste them all here. But a reading of the crucial (middle or last part) horrifies me. It seems to be the same case as the Quezon Memorial Circle, in which this monument was made possible through a design competition. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to copy here the relevant excerpts of the Official Gazette article:

It would be Bonifacio and the effort would be pursued in a methodical manner. On February 5, 1915, the Philippine Assembly passed Act No. 2494, which appropriated funds for public works and monuments. In August 29, 1916, the United States Congress enacted the Jones Law making...replacing the American-dominated Philippine Commission with an all-Filipino Senate, which was inaugurated in October of that year.... On February 23, 1918, Act No. 2760 was passed, which approved the building of a memorial to Bonifacio, as well as the creation of national committee to oversee it....

...The national committee to build a monument then launched a contest for the design and the construction of the memorial. A total of thirteen artists participated, submitting their entries under aliases, and three notable Filipino artists of the time were assembled to judge over the results: the architect Andres Luna de San Pedro...as Chairman, along with fellow architect Tomas Mapua...and the sculptor Vicente Francisco. By July 15, 1930, the contest calling for the design of the monument had garnered thirteen entries, which was then narrowed down to seven by the 27th of July. Two days later, the committee after further deliberation, had its winners....

...The winning entry, which received a cash prize of Php 3,000, went to “Batang Elias,” the alias of Guillermo Tolentino. By then Tolentino was, as Alcazaren notes, “already an established sculptor, having come back a few years before from extended studies in sculpture in Washington D.C. and Rome.” The committee deemed Tolentino’s design to be in possession of all the necessary requirements, artistic and sculptural—an edificial equal to the greatness of the man in whose honor the monument was to be dedicated.

With the design on hand, the amount of Php 97,000 (roughly Php 29,906,056.27 in today’s money) was appropriated for the erection of the monument—under Act No. 3602, passed on December 2, 1929. On August 30, 1930, the committee announced the results of the public competition pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 3602. An additional Php 26,041.76 (about Php 8,028,931.53 in today’s money) came from voluntary contributions (Guillermo Masangkay, for one, had donated Php 10,000). Guillermo Tolentino had, at his disposal, the total amount of Php 125,000 (equivalent to about Php 38,538,732.39 today) to construct the monument and thus realize his vision for a bold, unprecedented, and lasting tribute to Andres Bonifacio.

Paging again people involved in various discussions (in the first DR and at the failed Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-06#Request for undeletion of two files File:Bonifacio Monument.jpg and File:Bonifacio monument caloocan.JPG) for the inputs @Alan, Namayan, Lymantria, and De728631: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote last year, I think "commissioned by the government" does not automaticly mean "work of the Government", but I am not specialized in Philippine Law. Lymantria (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @JWilz12345, Hariboneagle927, and Lymantria: Going through a different route for this one, at the time the monument was designed (1930s), the copyright law in force was Act No. 3134 (1924) which required registration and a notice for a work to be copyright-protected. As per Section 11 and 12 of the Act, copyright may be secured either by the "registration of the claim" and "by publication thereof with the required notice of copyright" or "by the deposit, with claim of copyright, of one complete copy of such work or of a photographic print or of a photograph or other identifying reproduction thereof" to the National Library. It is also clearly stated in Sec. 11 that "No copyright in any work is considered as existing until the provisions of this Act with respect to the deposit of copies and registration of claim to copyright shall have been complied with." Presidential Decree No. 49 s. 1972 which removed the requirements was not retroactive thus work published before 1972 had to comply with the requirements of Act 3134 to be eligible for copyright protection. Because of this, I suggest someone should contact the Intellectual Property Office or the National Library for records that would show Tolentino registered his design. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to page others who are involved on PHL FoP discussions @Howhontanozaz: . @Exec8, Ianlopez1115, King of Hearts, P199, and Sky Harbor: . Also paging @Nat and Clindberg: because this statement about the non-retroactivity of copyright for architecture or even sculptural works could make 1951–72 Philippine structural works 100% OK at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But take note, there is an ongoing matter about FoP at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines‎#New discussion on PHL FoP. 05:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, Act 3134 did not state that all government works are public domain, just publications and official documents. For us to conclude that Bonifacio Memorial Monument is public domain, we must first establish if whether or not Tolentino registered the design with the National Library within 30 days of publication. If he assigned the copyright to the government, Sec. 26 of the Act states that a copy of every assignment or conveyance of copyright or permission or license to use or inherit right should be filed with the National Library. Copyright under Act 3134 runs for 30 years from the date of registration. Assuming that Tolentino registered the design in 1930, copyright should have expired in 1960, after Berne convention but before the newer 1972 law. So the issue hinges on whether the National Library has in its Copyright Database a registration record of this monument by Tolentino. I have already contacted the NLP. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note for transparency of my latest activity here on Commons @Howhontanozaz: I used your insight to raise the discussion anew about 1951–72 Philippine buildings (and possibly other structures) at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Philippine buildings (and possibly, other structural works) 1951–72 again, with regards to "copyright issues" that prevent the undeletion of deleted photos of Antipolo Cathedral and Iglesia Filipina Independiente National Cathedral. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a copyright notice on these statues? If not, I would assume things were similar to the U.S., since they had the same notice requirements and presumably the same definition of "publication". In which case copyright would have expired immediately, and they would be fine. If there was a notice, renewal may well have been required after thirty years as well, though no idea how to check that -- unsure if their renewal volumes were published or are online. Agreed that there does not seem to have been any Philippine copyright law which restored PD works, so they seem to be non-retroactive.
I'm not sure whether the work would be considered a U.S. Government work -- but given the U.S. example, it may not. Works made under commission like that currently are not U.S. government works (court cases have ruled a valid infringement on a couple of newer statues on the National Mall in Washington DC). Older ones are probably moot due to lack of notice, or lack of renewal (the Iwo Jima monument in Washington DC does have a notice, but seems to have lacked a renewal, so expired that way).
As for whether notices were still required in the 1951-1972 period, I have no idea -- that question was mentioned in one essay I read, and it sounds like it was never brought up in a court case so nobody really knows, so the 1972 law was the only "answer". Even if the adoption of the Berne Convention did eliminate the notice requirements, I doubt they eliminated the renewal requirements -- when the U.S. adopted the Berne Convention, and did eliminate the notice requirements as they did, the renewal requirements on existing works were kept -- it took three more years before another law was passed removing those, and granting automatic renewal to works still not expired. So, it's probably reasonable to assume that the renewal requirements still existed for works published before 1951, even if they had notice (if no notice, they of course expired and remained that way by the looks of it). I do see there was a "Catalog of Copyright Entries 1964-1968" published by the Philippine National Library in 1972, so they were apparently still recording registrations and renewals in that period. I can't see the text of that book though, so not sure exactly what was in it (there were at least two volumes). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'New'  Comment regarding the monument (I also support  Keep for the image of the plaque as said by Seav): @Clindberg and Howhontanozaz: it appears this monument is copyright-protected after all, via the Republic Act No. 8293 and not the American colonial-era Act 3134. See this new Facebook post of IPOPHL for today which is Bonifacio Day, November 30. It applies the current rule of copyright for the Bonifacio Monument, as: "sculptures, like other literary and artworks, are protected by #Copyright from the moment of its creation." It credits its creator, Guillermo Tolentino. Does this mean R.A. 8293 is retroactive after all? Will this new FB post by IPOPHL also affect the de facto Commons view on Philippine buildings before 1972 or even 1951? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I slashed my inputs as these became irrelevant since the Facebook reply of IPOPHL-Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights to my comment of their post last November 30, 2020. To quote the relevant parts of their reply (as that reply was also addressed to another person who commented on the same post):

Re:Andres Bonifacio Sculpture

In response to a post that IPOPHL made last November 30 on the above subject, we received two particularly interesting comments. One states that the sculpture is government property and, therefore, has no copyright, and the other inquires whether or not the sculpture is already part of the public domain....

...On the second point, and based on publicly available articles and references, Tolentino’s sculpture was inaugurated in 1933. It is thus created during the regime of Act 3134 which requires “the deposit of copies and registration of claim to copyright.” (Sec. 11) Assuming these requirements were satisfied by Tolentino, the same law also provides that copyright shall “endure for thirty years from the date it is registered,” (Sec.18) subject to renewal for another 30 years. (ibid.)

Act 3134 was repealed by Presidential Decree No. 49 in 1972. Copyright protection was expressly made applicable to works in which copyright protection obtained prior to said decree was still subsisting at the time of its effectivity. Note that by this time, more than 30 years have lapsed since the Bonifacio sculpture was inaugurated in 1933. Thus, unless the copyright claim was renewed by Tolentino in 1963, the work would have lapsed into the public domain. Only then would the copyright protection provided under PD No. 49 (i.e. lifetime plus 50 years after death) apply to the Bonifacio sculpture....

— IPOPHL-Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights

@Clindberg and Hariboneagle927: basing on IPOPHL-BCRR's reply, as this monument was "published" in 1933 (the erection/unveiling), under the regime of American colonial-era Act. No 3134, and as I cannot find any online sources stating that Tolentino did indeed registered his monument (or if he did, renewed his copyright over it), can it be safe to say that Bonifacio Monument (Caloocan) is now in PD = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Howhontanozaz: for some input. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what kind of valid evidence we would need. Many years ago, we required an actual search be paid for at the U.S. Copyright Office because the renewal volumes were not online so that others could check/verify. Some of the older Philippine copyright catalogs might be online; the newer ones are as well but Google has no preview (they should be unambiguously PD since they were government works before 1972, but I'm sure they are conservative). On the other hand, I think a copyright notice was required anyways. Don't think it's worth deleting over these questions, as the odds of registration/renewal are pretty low and the copyright notice would be verifiable, and this is prominent enough that a renewal might have been researched and mentioned somewhere. That IPOPHL answer *does* seem to indicate that the renewal formalities under the old law continued after the Berne Convention was joined, so anything published before 1942 would need a renewal. Doesn't explicitly answer if notices were still required after 1951, but this was done long before that date anyways, so they were required then. I'd say  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content by Judgefloro

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

  • 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) 08:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: according to COM:FOP Philippines the sculptures made before 1972 (applicable here) need a copyright registration, before 1942 (applicable here) need a registration and renewal to be copyrighted. As we have no information about registration and/or renewal and it is likely that is wasn't done, we can keep unless someone shows contradicting information. --rubin16 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Bonifacio_National_Monument_(Caloocan_City)&oldid=568908837"