Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:EDSA Shrine

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:EDSA Shrine

[edit]

This shrine was incepted in 1989 which makes it ineligible for freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Images of sculptures, other artwork and prominent architectural details can therefore not be kept at Commons.

De728631 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; thanks for the messages; please allow me respectfully submit my concise reply to wit: I am a Roman Catholic, and before I took pictures of the EDSA Shrine and its components, I asked permission from the Rector of the Shrine, who told me that the Shrine belongs to us Catholics who fought at EDSA, and we are considered not only heroes of the EDSA Revolution but as co-contributors of the building of the Shrine by our donations though how big or petty; I was thus expressly permitted to photograph what is ours in our Religion; further, the Bishop of Cubao and Mandaluyong gave us express permission to take photos as part of our Christian Faith, at any rate, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons since the photos are Landmarks and National Cultural treasures, very very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Judgefloro. I appreciate your efforts to portray this iconic landmark, but there is an issue with this kind of reasoning at Commons. We need to have legal evidence that the copyright holder of each of these artworks, from the architects of the church to the sculptors and other designers, agree to the publication of derivative photographs. Therefore we require proof that all copyrights were transferred to the Roman Catholic diocese, so the Bishop can in fact grant a permission to publish these pictures. And as always in such cases, it would have to go through COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad to say: Delete. The people behind the art of this famous landmark that is heavily photographed by thousands of Filipinos are:
  1. w:Francisco Mañosa (d. February 20, 2019) - the structure itself
  2. w:Virginia Ty-Navarro (still living as of this writing) - the Mama Mary sculpture
  3. w:Napoleon Abueva (d. February 16, 2018) - for the Stations of the Cross sculpture on the shrine grounds.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Paging @Judgefloro and De728631: for some input 10:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder: Thanks for your deep concern on these photos of Philippine Cultural Heritage and Landmark - EDSA Revolution I - memorial; as Regional Trial Court Judge of Malabon and Ateneo Law Alumni, please allow me to hereby state that this is a grey area or one of the finer points of Philippine law vis-a-vis a) Canon law of the Catholic Church b) International law c) USA Federal Law and Copyright law of the Philippines Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, to wit: i) International law recognizes the Property rights of Vatican City, the Holy See vis-a-vis Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila Broderick Pabillo Auxiliary bishop Sede vacante Diocesan administrator, who has exclusive jurisdiction over the EDSA Shrine headed by its Rector but under said Pabillo ; ii) there appears no conflict whatsoever between Commons following the Copyright Laws of Philippines and USA Federal Laws on one hand and Canon Law, on the other, which is recognized by International Law; as a Separate State from Rome, Vatican City by its Holy See, Pope Francis is Supreme of the Hierarchy of World Laws on Church properties; iii) it is well known that private chapels and Shrines cannot be elevated to Parish Churches unless the land and buildings with all accessories and its Torrens Title under Property Registration Decree PD 1529 are transferred not to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila in this case, but to the Auxiliary bishop Sede vacante Diocesan administrator Pabillo, as incumbent; the Title of Auxiliary bishop of Manila appears in the Torrens Title of the Lot, land and all the buildings and improvements thereon, registered with the Registry of Propery of Quezon City, not in the name of Bishop Pabillo, but in the fee simple of Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila; iv) when thus titled, the processes or process of issuing the Decree of Parish Church or Shrine of EDSA is thus issued and even approved by elevation to the Auxiliary Bishop of Manila, at Manila Cathedral for Imprimatur; v) the Decree permanently creates the Parish Churh or EDSA Shrine and the Solemnization Mass and Blessing of the Church follows; vi) afterwards, all properties, whether statues, crosses, relics, art, sculpture, towers, bell, and all incidents become functus officio, the properties of the Auxiliary bishop of Manila by fee simple both under Canon Law, International Law and Civil Law including the Copyright Law, 1987 Constitution and settled Jurisprudence both the Jurisprudence of Catholic canon law Philippines and International law; vii) following these points are the Rules of Statutory interpretation and the Laws on Property which include Copyright law: the maxim of Accessory follows the principal governs:: all the properties whether sculptures or additions are or become inherent properties of the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila, and nothing is left to anymone; no right therefore remains whether moral, wise or otherwise to the makers, sculptors or any and all the works inside the Church; viii) by operation of Canon Law vis-a-vis Copyright Law, all the rights of the Sculptors are tranferred to the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila as Titular, from the moment of its creation and after payment of the art fees or after signing the Deed of Donation by the Sculptors tranferring in fee simple all their moral and remaining rights in the works to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila; no permission therefore is needed to copy or to photograph any and all things whether facade, microscopic, macro or De Minimis from the Bishop or heirs of the Sculptor, for the arts belong to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila and or the Faithful, WE, the Catholics, who are co-owners thereof with the Auxiliary bishop of Manila ; ix) at any rate, when I photographed the Manila Cathedral which is the Seat of the Auxiliary bishop of Manila, I was told by the Rector of the Cathedral about the foregoing, stated in Lay man's terms and I was granted permission, thus; a final word perhaps - not once but 3 times I wrote a Letter to the Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) at Fort Bonifacio to clarify the Matter of FOP but, as expected, they would not issue any reply due to the fact that the Supreme Court has not yet ever since RULED on the matter for no justiciable controversy has been elevated to the High Tribunal on FOP, x) Finally, I made extensive angle by angle photos of the EDSA Shrine for I am ahead of the world's time::: There is a clear and present danger, for Filipinos to greatly fear that this Shrine was already on table planned to be demolished to give way to the BUILD, BUILD, BUILD infrastructures road transport LRT MRT extensions or otherwise; ergo, I humbly suggest, that if these photos would be deleted, please, before the deletion, upload them in Flickr and another safe haven, where these photos would remain in the Portals of Eternity; with these, I respectfully submit my legal opinion not as Judge but an Senior Citizen of Commons, literally, as I am 67 years old, and I share the Wisdom of Commons creators' philosophy, very very sincerely yours, Judge Floro Judgefloro (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question to @Judgefloro: in your statement that "struck me": "by operation of Canon Law vis-a-vis Copyright Law, all the rights of the Sculptors are tranferred to the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila as Titular, from the moment of its creation and after payment of the art fees or after signing the Deed of Donation by the Sculptors tranferring in fee," you're saying that structures and landmarks that are owned and operated by the Catholic Church automatically become "100% owned by the Church itself," and that moral rights and copyrights by the side of Mañosa et. al. become "automatically null and void"? Is this the case despite the lack of FoP provision in the Philippines? I may need some inputs from @Clindberg and King of Hearts: et. al. about this, but I won't be inclining to strike with slash my poll until this is confirmed (ex. a valid judicial quotation and evidence recognizing your statement). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reword my question to @Judgefloro: to make it more neutral: In your statement, does this mean that structures that are meant to be used by the Catholic Church are 100% owned by the Church itself, and that the creators (in this case the side of Abueva, Mañosa, et. al.) waived or surrendered their moral rights and copyrights to the Church, and you're implying that such structures are now of Common property by Filipinos? This is my interpretation of the following statement of yours:

...by operation of Canon Law vis-a-vis Copyright Law, all the rights of the Sculptors are tranferred to the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila as Titular, from the moment of its creation and after payment of the art fees or after signing the Deed of Donation by the Sculptors tranferring in fee, simple all their moral and remaining rights in the works to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila; no permission therefore is needed to copy or to photograph any and all things whether facade, microscopic, macro or De Minimis from the Bishop or heirs of the Sculptor, for the arts belong to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila and or the Faithful...

Changed my poll to  Neutral (no keep, no delete in keeping with Commons:PCP). Should this new provision (or, "ecclesiastical provision") on FOP (for Catholic structures) be forwarded to Commons:Village pump/Copyright? Better inputs might be provided by other editors. 17:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Reply, Rejoinder and Request to draft, finalize and file a Formal FOP Definitive Opinion for Commons Uploading - Letters to both new IPO director Rowel Barba and DOJ Secretary Menardo Ilasco Guevarra - Request for Opinion of Secretary of Justice bis LBC mail and or Email - Reply and rejoinder on Philippine Roman Catholic Parish Churches: a) with my Canon Law discussions vis-a-vis Civil Law particularly Copyright Law of Philippines on FOP - I state with utter certainty that based on my many experiences as Catholic ::: a) before any Parish, I say Parish not Chapel is Decreed and Solemnized by Bishop Blessing and Decretum, the lot and building must first be titled in the name of the Bishop of the Diocese like Malolos or Antipolo or Manila Archdiocese; for example the Category:Most Holy Trinity Quasi-Parish Church (Barihan, Malolos, Bulacan) was Decreed built since the Old old Chapel Category:Bisita ng Santisima Trinidad (Malolos City, Bulacan) was claimed by defeated defendants in RTC Malolos Bulacan; Bishop Oliveros banned Priests from saying Mass hence an Aglipayan said Mass until the controversy was ended when the defendants agreed to the transfer of Title of land and buildings of the Bisita to the Bishop of Malolos; to underscore, Catholic Church laws set conditio sine qua non that the Bishop of Malolos or any Diocese must have Fee simple title via Deed of Donation signed by Donors owners and all accessories like sculptures and all the rights thereof of copyright holders whether moral or otherwise are absolutely transferred to the Bishop of Malolos by isuance of new Transfer Certificate of Title in his Titular not personal name; no sculptor or any painter like Lahug can claim any moral right in his paintings at Betis Pampanga Church; b) the same thing happens to Government properties and statues like Rizal's - all the workers or sculptors must transfer all their rights including moral to the Local or National Government; for Government funds whether Barangay, Municipal or National were used to acquire, built and own the property and accessories; and no permission whatsover is needed to photograph these;
I would like to suggest that as veteran editor, as suggested by User:Ianlopez1115 please draft, finalize and file a Formal FOP Defiinitive Opinion for Commons Uploading - Letters to both new IPO director Rowel Barba and DOJ Secretary Menardo Ilasco Guevarra - Request for Opinion of Secretary of Justice vis LBC mail and or Email, to settle once and for all the matter of Deletion, or Undeletion of FOP uploaded photos pending hereat Commons; I do not want to be the one since I repeat Category:Menardo Ilasco Guevarra is my classmate and I might be favored with subjectivity; for I believe in Commons founders' philosophy of objectively and neutrality of myself in dealing with my photos nominated for deletion, thanks and very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judgefloro, do you have physical proof that the THREE CREATORS of this shrine surrendered their moral rights to the catholic church of the philippines? Napoleon abueva, francisco mañosa, and virginia ty-navarro? If you have proof for example existing records and documents paper or digital then this shrine can be saved from no freedom of pano case.

But if you just generalized the wording of thesources you used, toapply the "transfer of deed to the church" to all religious structures, youre just guessing. Additionally the claims you made is just physical ownership of for example a church bldg. The wikipedia entry also contradicts your claim. The land was just a holding of the ortigas and gokongwei family before it was handed over to the church. No evidence to support your application of the "transfer of the moral rights from the creator to the church" the url you gave points to physical ownership and NOT the surrendering of moral rights. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 02:05, 30 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 @De728631 and Judgefloro: , 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.) 14:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, except File:EDSAShrinejf0121 11.JPG as de minimis. The main subject is the sign. ƏXPLICIT 12:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:EDSA_Shrine&oldid=678970847"