Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hotel H20 (Manila Ocean Park)

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:Hotel H20 (Manila Ocean Park)

The hotel is part of the oceanarium complex that was opened in 2008 (source: w:Manila Ocean Park). According to IPOPHL-BCRR, regular rules still apply while the amendment to copyright law is still pending at the Congress: no freedom of panorama in the Philippines and a permission and consent for uploader's choice of licensing (preferably via COM:OTRS email) from the architect who designed this architectural work is required. Permission from the management is irrelevant, as they do not hold copyright over this architectural work.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously your argument is not legal, and you have to remember that DM is subjective (there is no law that define the limits of this). But simply put: copyright is protecting who and how a work may be used. De minimis exception is defined by law and that its application is of course objective (in Germany, for example, de minimis is regulated by sec. 57 of the German Copyright Act and there are countless court decisions that interpret this law). Try to understand the legal background of the application of de minimis on Commons under U.S. copyright law. I'm not sure why you would pursue the FOP and what is your intent? As you repeatedly echoed, you are Pro-freedom of Panorama, and not a Deletionist, but you are still trying to get this image deleted?" Allow me to quote if it pleases the Commons Community a learned "Rest assured that as an admin, I try to apply Commons policies as conscientiously as possible, but I am no copyright lawyer. For legal advice, you better consult a lawyer" xxx "I admit I am no lawyer, though I have always referred to Republic Act No. 8293 or IP Code of the Philippines in many FOP or DW-related request. But the matter whether DM applies to the Philippine cases may no longer need debate, if a potential dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia happens. (IPOPHL, in their reply to an email sent by Higad Rail Fan last November 2020, said they are open for such dialogue, though I don't know if Wikimedia is aware on this, considering that IPOPHL expects a WMF-initiated dialogue on FOP).

"IMO it is actually ridiculous that mere users need to establish the legal policies to which Commons must adhere. One would expect the Wikimedia lawyers to take care of this. I guess that would be my starting point... "

I underscore that I am a Lawyer and of course an incumbent Regional Trial Judge by virtue of the Granting of My Appeal but the Court NOTED without Action my Reimbursement of Back wages; still, the IPO are just my Peers; I would not go to their level since Directors come and go, and if you check their Alumni Records, none of them can even hold the Candle that I hold as Justice Regino C. Hermosisima scolded me to stop healing, horses and hula or Prophecies; I repeatedly stated that the Law is the Law Dura Lex Sed Lex: only the Copyright holder within 4 years has the right even here to delete En masse;

How can Wikimedia Non-lawyers discuss the Grey areas of FOP with the Directors of IPO or Bureau of Copyright? Well the Answer lies here: xxx I don't have the time or energy to fully comprehend FOP-related legalities in the Philippines, so I am neutral. Please stop pinging me about them. xxx and You as I underline stated " Philippine FOP is actually stressful to me. I actually hate seeing these deleted, but "my hands are tied" because I must comply with the longstanding policies here. I hope that Wikimedia Foundation will finally agree to initiate a dialogue with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama. Hopefully WMF agrees to the WMF–IPOPHL dialogue."

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a vey Strong Objection to the Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP I guess that would be my starting point...Judgefloro (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Judgefloro: the dialogue has already been conducted. Last February 10. There is now a pending bill in the House of Representatives to amend the copyright law, and that bill (HB 8620, you may search it online) has a freedom of panorama provision. However, in that dialogue, IPOPHL had said that while the bill is pending, the prevailing status is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. You must obtain permission and consent to your choice of licensing from the architect of this building for your images to be hosted here. IPOPHL said that copyright laws are statutory rights, and FOP cannot be interpreted by mere legal advice like you once wished (legal advice from DOJ, that will have no legal standing). It has to be defined in the copyright law. If there is no FOP, as IPOPHL said in the current status of our copyright law, there is no FOP. That's why there is now a pending bill. But it is still 50-50 on whether that bill will be passed in the Congress or not. And please, avoid resorting to ad hominem attacks in deletion requests, and be objective and coherent. Continued use of indirect references from talk pages with ad hominem purpose may be a ground for COM:ANU. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, "only the Copyright holder within 4 years has the right even here to delete En masse" is against the precautionary principle policy. And no @Judgefloro: , the four year extinctive period has no bearing here: it only occurs after the removal of the infringing materials. Anyone can request removal as long as the work of architecture or art is copyrighted and that its presence here (which means potential for exploitation) without FOP exception is continued. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And while I am a pro-freedom of panorama, I also need to uphold the respect for copyright even in online world. That's why I am active against the "CTTO culture" of many Filipino netizens. As per COM:CARES, Commons respects the copyright holder (even the copyright holders of all buildings and public art in the world), even if the copyright holder doesn't mind of having freely-licensed images of his/her works hosted here. And since the "no FOP in the Philippines" is confirmed by the IPOPHL itself (at least while the proposed amendment is pending), then there's nothing to debate for. I shouldn't break the copyright law of the Philippines. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believe, I never filed any Undeletions, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the DOJ, the IPO and Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 12:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hotel H20 (Manila Ocean Park)

Files in Category:Hotel H20 (Manila Ocean Park)

Navigation menu

Search