Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial 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:Quezon Memorial Shrine 1

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. The artist died in 1989, so this work will not be in the public domain until 2039.

Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the messages; when I took these pictures I asked permission from the officers, and I was told that taking photos of these are allowed, especially they appear to be for public learning; I respectfully remain very sincerely yours Judgefloro 06:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
May I suggest a Written-Formal Query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines to Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago
Considering that a New Director has been appointed replacing Director Blancaflor (who, I presume did not categorically respond on my or your editors' query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines) it is but just and fitting that Senior editors or sysops of Wikimedia Commons formally submit a written Query on the matter, to settle once and for all whether photos should be deleted or not based on the present rules of Commons on the matter. Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines Very sincerely Judgefloro 09:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines)

[edit]
Considering that a New Director has been appointed replacing Director Blancaflor (who, I presume did not categorically respond on my or your editors' query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines) it is but just and fitting that Rulings on these Deletion of images entries be held in abeyance for the sake of Wisdom of future Users and global learners of Wikimedia Commons; today, I formally submitted a written Query on the matter, to settle once and for all whether photos should be deleted or not based on the present rules of Commons on the matter. Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts Very sincerely yours, Judgefloro 08:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The FOP issue is a gray area of Philippine copyright law that affects images of many modern architectural works in the Philippines posted here on Commons (but not elsewhere on the Web), and I agree with the two this should not be deleted as Seav states is clearly a government-commissioned work. It's just time not to step too far regarding lack of FOP in the Philippines, but I agree US copyright law prevails (the work needs to be both free in the US and the Philippines) and the nominator just did it right. As far as I know, Filipino architects don't mind any pictures of their works, even where posted on the Net; it's just the existing law (from the 1990s) that doesn't reflect reality. --TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 02:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Quoting user Seav:
The architect was an employee of the government and the shrine is owned and maintained by the government. As such the shrine is considered a work of the government and according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, no copyright subsists in works of the government. This also applies to when the Philippine government was part of the United States during the time the shrine was designed. —seav (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and PD-PhilippinesGov tag.

{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} Markoolio97 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro

[edit]
Considering that a New Director has been appointed replacing Director Blancaflor (who, I presume did not categorically respond on my or your editors' query on No Freedom of Panoramana in the Philippines) it is but just and fitting that Rulings on these Deletion of images entries be held in abeyance for the sake of Wisdom of future Users and global learners of Wikimedia Commons; on January 30, 2019, Judge Floro formally submitted a written Query on the matter, to settle once and for all whether photos should be deleted or not based on the present rules of Commons on the matter in the light of IPO-Laws on Copyright of the Philippines Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts
Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro - dated January 30, 2019 - stating that her IPO Office received Judge Floro's letter dated January 30, 2019 and regarding the latter's "Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright”) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works." The IPO Office stated that Appropriate Action-Feedback will be issued in due course by the IPO as it referred this matter to its subordinate Bureau of the Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) Judgefloro 10:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


Kept: {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} applies here. --Ankry (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2019 (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:Quezon Memorial Shrine 2

[edit]

No freedom of pano in the Phils. Ilustre (d. 1989) designed this "beautiful" monument ONLY on his capacity as a private citizen whne he won a competiton. Some "notes" here claiming that it is work by govt are lblatant lies.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Info much of these files were discussed in two DR's before: at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial (Sept.–Oct. 2015 discussion) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Circle (Jan.–March 2019 discussion). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Judgefloro: to note, the no FoP in the Philippines matter was recently raised (anew) at the Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, 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. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to decide, I'd say weak keep because it was argued by many Pinoy Wikipedians that this is a commissioned work of the government, with Ilustre said to be working at the Bureau of Public Works at that time. However, a new issue was raised at my undeletion attempt for the 2000's-era photo entitled File:Quezon memorial.jpg, in which Nat pointed out that Ilustre designed the monument "for a national design competition held in 1951 for the then-planned monument for late President Manuel L. Quezon, where he won the grand prize," which might also mean that he might had worked on the monument "in his capacity as a private citizen," with the date of his part on the bureau becoming irrelevant.
Pardon me po if I might repeat page of various other users for this issue: @Jsnueva1022, Seav, Ianlopez1115, P199, King of Hearts, and TagaSanPedroAko: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paging also @Howhontanozaz: . 17:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update changed my poll now to strong  Keep: to quote Jsnueva1022's statement: "The Quezon Memorial Shrine is a historical location located in Quezon City, Philippines. It was built by the Philippine government, local government unit of Quezon City in specific, in honor to the late President Manuel Quezon." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep That said, the "{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} applies here" didn't contested by the new nominator. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slashed my inputs. I will leave this matter on its natural cause without forcing the resolution (whether keep or delete) through my inputs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extract of my undeletion attempt for the Quezon Memorial Shrine photo from the undeletion requests

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Quezon memorial.jpg, file was deleted because of "no FoP in the Philippines," deletion was made in 2012. However, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Circle (dated 2019), QMC (esp. the monument) was designer by Federico Ilustre who "was working for the Bureau of Public Works when he did this design." (per User:Jameslwoodward) Added basis is from @Seav: , quoted by @Markoolio97: :

The architect was an employee of the government and the shrine is owned and maintained by the government. As such the shrine is considered a work of the government and according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, no copyright subsists in works of the government. This also applies to when the Philippine government was part of the United States during the time the shrine was designed.

As such, QMC is PD (a work of and owned by the government) and photos of it are permissible at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Hmmm. While I'm not opposed to undeletion, the statement that Federico Ilustre "was working for the Bureau of Public Works when he did this design." overlooks the fact that per the English Wikipedia article: His most notable work would be his design of the Quezon Memorial Shrine monument, a design he made for a national design competition held in 1951 for the then-planned monument for late President Manuel L. Quezon, where he won the grand prize, which indicates that he may not have been working on this design in his capacity as a government employee, but as a private citizen competing in a national design competition. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nat: in this case, I might mention again the two users — @Seav: and @Markoolio97: — who interpreted this "commissioning of works by the government as equivalent to PD-PH government" and were active in the prior undeletion attempts at QMC (which somehow were 98% successful). I also passed by this previous undeletion request of 98% of the deleted pictures of QMC - Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#Photographs of Quezon Memorial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nat: found an insight at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine, by @TagaSanPedroAko: "The FOP issue is a gray area of Philippine copyright law that affects images of many modern architectural works in the Philippines posted here on Commons (but not elsewhere on the Web), and I agree with the two this should not be deleted as Seav states is clearly a government-commissioned work. It's just time not to step too far regarding lack of FOP in the Philippines, but I agree US copyright law prevails (the work needs to be both free in the US and the Philippines) and the nominator just did it right. As far as I know, Filipino architects don't mind any pictures of their works, even where posted on the Net; it's just the existing law (from the 1990s) that doesn't reflect reality."
I somehow agree with TagaSanPedroAko, and also with @Sky Harbor: in his futile attempt to "save" a pic that was eventually deleted. Despite vagueness of our copyright law, with incompatible fair use guidelines, and the non-mention of a FOP-like provision, it can be said that there is "status quo" situation for photography prevailing in the Philippines, since no case lawsuit against Filipino photographers has ever been filed by the architectural community, at least for those photographing structures that were built or designed by the now-deceased people. This might be against the 5 precautionary measures, but that is the reality in our country. I might also quote a so-called general principle in our laws that was uttered by to Hon. Alfredo Garbin Jr. of the w:Ako Bicol party list during the June 8 hearing for the ABS-CBN's franchise (link to the w:Philippine Star video - [1]). At point 1:47:50, he said that "the basic principle in law, and that principle is that what is not prohibited is allowed." Although this might only apply to the station's franchise woes, it can be interpreted that his statement is for all Philippine laws, whether network franchise or copyright or even photographic restrictions. I previously posted this insight on King of Hearts' enwiki talkpage.
If there are some restrictions in photography, these are usually non-copyright restrictions such as needing an access permit to visit a landmark or asking permission from the management or the security officers. @Judgefloro: once responded Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine that upon asking permission from the officers, he was told that it is permissible to take pictures for purposes of Wikimedia Commons since such purposes are for "public learning" (i.e. educational purposes). So I can assume that pictures of QMC and its monument are allowable here in accordance with Commons' aims JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The architect was an employee of the government and the shrine is owned and maintained by the government. As such the shrine is considered a work of the government and according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, no copyright subsists in works of the government. This also applies to when the Philippine government was part of the United States during the time the shrine was designed.

The most suitable tag to be used for this case is {{3-D in PD}} with embedded {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}.
And I stand with Hon. Garbin's (of Ako-Bikol party list) statement about the basic principle in Philippine laws (although some might argue it as only relevant to citizenship and franchise laws, not copyright law, and others might say "please see 5 precautionary principles!"): "What is not prohibited is allowed." (a mere application of common sense) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. My point is that the argument of there are no lawsuits of photographic reproductions of architectural works is irrelevant. COM:FOP Philippines clearly notes that restrictions here are clearly copyright restrictions. The only question that should be considered here is whether Federico Ilustre acted in the capacity of a government employee or a private citizen when he participated in the national design competition for the monument (in which a prize was awarded). Everything else is irrelevant at the moment. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the source cited on Ilustre's enwiki article, although the original link is down (https://web.archive.org/web/20141017040422/http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-restoration-of-quezon-memorial-shrine/) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Quezon Memorial Shrine was designed by Architect Federico Ilustre, who won a design contest for the Quezon Memorial Project in 1951. The Bureau of Public Works began the construction of the memorial in 1952 but failed to finish due to insufficient funding. Later on, the memorial was turned over to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (formerly NHI) by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1 issued by Pres. Ferdinand Marcos on September 21, 1972.[1] The Commission took the responsibility to finish the structure.[2]

  • [1] Historical Markers Metroplitan Manila.  Manila: National Historical Insitute, 1993, p. 106.
  • [2] Ramos-De Leon, Lilia. The Quezon Memorial Shrine. Kasaysayan Vol. III N.1-4, Manila: National Historical Institute, 1978, p. 9-10.
Also found a passage on enwiki article itself, @Nat:

He first joined the Bureau of Public Works in 1936 as a draftsman, staying in that position until the outbreak of World War II in the country in 1941. He was then promoted to the position of consulting architect iduring the Japanese Occupation. After the war, he briefly left the bureau to join the AFWESPAC of the US Army as supervising architect and assist them in the postwar infrastructure rehabilitation. In 1947, he became the supervising architect of the National Housing Commission, a position he held for two years until he returned to the Bureau of Public Works in 1949 also as supervising architect. He would remain with the public works office until the 1970s.[1] _ Lico, Gerard (2008). Arkitekturang Filipino: A History of Architecture and Urbanism in the Philippines. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Accordingly, Ilustre was working (actually returned) as a supervising architect to the Bureau of Public Works in 1949. This means that he was part of the Bureau of Public Works (as a supervising architect) when he did the design in 1951 (or maybe 1950, but it is improbable that he made the design before 1950). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: A quote from the Philippine Star article concerning the construction of the now-demolished terminal building of the Manila International Airport (precursor of NAIA):

In 1954 Magsaysay gave the Bureau of Public Works the orders to implement designs prepared by noted government architect Federico Ilustre. Ilustre had apprenticed with Juan Nakpil before the war. After Liberation, he won the competition for the Quezon Memorial. He became the chief architect of the Bureau of Public Works, the precursor of today’s DPWH.

It seems to contradict various claims by several sites that he designed the monument as a Bureau of Public Works employee. His public works position wasn't also mentioned in the following:

World War II and the destruction it brought to the metropolis, not to mention the death of the newborn capitol city’s founder during that period, dashed the hopes for those grand plans....Until the government decided to dedicate this field instead as a memorial to the man whose vision made Quezon City possible, with a shrine instead of the planned capitol to be its landmark. A contest was soon held for the design of the planned Quezon Memorial Shrine that was to rise in the elliptical field. The prize was eventually given to the design of Filipino architect Federico Ilustre, which incorporated contemporary design with some classical and symbolic inspirations. Although the planning of the memorial began way back after the war in 1945, it would take more than 30 years before the vision of the Quezon memorial was finally realized due to long-winding issues with funding and materials....

The Quezon Memorial Committee which was tasked to organize a nationwide fund-raising campaign for the building of a monument dedicated to former President Manuel Quezon, was established by the virtue of Executive Order, No. 79 signed by then President Sergio Osmeña on December 17, 1945. Then President Elpidio Quirino proposed the relocation of the monument away from its original planned site but such plans were not pushed through. The Bureau of Public Works commenced the construction of the monument in 1952.

If this is true then does that mean all other pictures of this monument are also affected (in particular all pictures undeleted at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#Photographs of Quezon Memorial)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Hi, I just want to add that according to page 161 of this report issued by the Quezon Memorial Committee in 1952, I quote:

    In order to secure an appropriate plan of this Memorial a contest was opened some time ago by the Committee to all architects and civil engineers for the selection of the best design for the proposed Memorial. The prize of P10,000 was offered for the plan adjudged the best. This prize was won by Architect Federico Ilustre. The winning plan together with all its details, is on display in the Office of the Committee in the City Hall.

  • Judging by this, I would assume that Ilustre's design was made in his capacity as a private architect rather than as the chief architect of the government. However, in page 163, there is an illustration of Ilustre's plan for the memorial with his name written at the bottom and a logo at the bottom right corner. If anyone can identity that logo which to me looks like a government office seal, maybe it could confirm that this was made in his capacity as a government architect. Just my 2 cents -Howhontanozaz (talk)
@Howhontanozaz: is there a higher resolution version of the copy of this page that can be seen on the Internet? Paging @Seav, Markoolio97, and Sky Harbor: for confirmation of this seal. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps paging @Jeff G., Yann, Ankry, Jameslwoodward, and TagaSanPedroAko: too, for inputs regarding the logo mentiones by Howhontanozaz (paging those who participated in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-02#Photographs of Quezon Memorial and in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine, hoping to bring this month-long undeletion discussion to a close) 10:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I would try contacting the National Archives and the Presidential Museum and Library for a higher resolution copy of this specific page and if possible, a copy of the plans. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: So both offices replied and they were both unhelpful, to be honest. The Presidential Museum replied with the zoomed in version of the page of the same online book found in the Internet Archive while the National Archives said they don't have the book nor the building plans available in their collections. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the images the Malacanang Museum sent me here. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BIG OPPOSE. Again, i just visited here. the fact that evidence presented above is compelling to accepr that QMC's creator was NOT a government employee. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: according to Jsnueva1022 at User talk:Mrcl lxmna#Nomination to delete the Quezon Memorial Shrine photo, this monument "was built by the Philippine government, local government unit of Quezon City in specific, in honor to the late President Manuel Quezon." So I think this should now rest the case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction JWilz12345, it was actually built by the now-defunct Quezon Memorial Committee using funds obtained through a fund-raising campaign. But that is somewhat irrelevant since the crux of this discussion concerns the design of the monument. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nat: Per Liuxinyu970226 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine, {{PD-PhilippineGov}} might apply here. So QMC monument can be a work from the government. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Request withdrawn. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi for info to you all this is a part of https://www.vigattintourism.com/tourism/articles/Quezon-Memorial-Circle-A-Famous-Historical-Park-in-Quezon-City


- "The site was originally intended as the grounds of the National Capitol to be built in Quezon City to house the Congress of the Philippines. The location was also part of a larger National Government Center located around Elliptical Road and the Quezon City Quadrangle (made up of the North, South, East, and West Triangles). The NGC was meant to house the three branches of the Philippine government (legislative, executive, and judicial). While the cornerstone for the structure was laid on November 15, 1940, only the foundations were in place when construction was interrupted by the beginning of the Second World War in the Philippines. After World War II, President Sergio Osmeña issued an executive order stipulating the creation of a Quezon Memorial Committee to raise funds by public subscription to erect a memorial to his predecessor, President Manuel L. Quezon. After a national contest was held for the purpose of designing the Quezon Memorial Project, a winning entry by Filipino architect Federico S. Ilustre was selected. Aside from the monument itself, a complex of three buildings, including a presidential library, a museum, and a theater, were also planned to be erected."

Im gping to strees this line "After a national contest was held for the purpose of designing the Quezon Memorial Project, a winning entry by Filipino architect Federico S. Ilustre was selected." MRCL LXMNA ----

Another source from https://www.theurbanroamer.com/the-soul-of-quezon-city-the-quezon-memorial-circle-and-its-shrine-part-1/

"Until the government decided to dedicate this field instead as a memorial to the man whose vision made Quezon City possible, with a shrine instead of the planned capitol to be its landmark..........A contest was soon held for the design of the planned Quezon Memorial Shrine that was to rise in the elliptical field. The prize was eventually given to the design of Filipino architect Federico Ilustre, which incorporated contemporary design with some classical and symbolic inspirations."

Take note of the RA 8293 statement. Part iv chapter 2:"""""172.2. 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. """""

After accessing and digesting the content of the debate between Nat and jwilz for some time, I am still conviced that tgese photos, until the philippines has freedom of pano, should be deleted. Accessing a philstar link to https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/modern-living/2016/01/08/1540557/portal-jet-age just only reinforces my point that this is not a government work.

"""In 1954 Magsaysay gave the Bureau of Public Works the orders to implement designs prepared by noted government architect Federico Ilustre. Ilustre had apprenticed with Juan Nakpil before the war. After Liberation, he won the competition for the Quezon Memorial. He became the chief architect of the Bureau of Public Works, the precursor of today’s DPWH."""

Ilustre designed thw monument before he came to government position so he was a private citizen at that time. This monument is not a government work, and even if it was a work by the government, could still fail its eligibility for wikimedia commons as the government is not obliged to force the creators to withdraw their moral rights. My position is delete these photos, with these massive evidences against claims made by various filipino wikipedians. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime 

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:13, 10 November 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 @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. 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.) 14:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final poll is  Delete as this is a government-commissioned work still copyrighted by Ilustre's heirs. See also COM:Philippines#Commissioned works and COM:Philippines#Government works. Unless there is "a written stipulation on the contrary". While this may come PD in the Philippines in 2040 (50+1 years after Federico Ilustre's death), this work is not an architecture per U.S. law (not habitable). Hence, falls on COM:URAA duration 95+1 years after publication. 1972 (completion)+95+1=2068. Or if FOP is introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per en:WP:TRAINWRECK, different cases, please renominate as separate DRs. --Anatoliy (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Quezon_Memorial_Shrine&oldid=542359377"