Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Clark

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:SM City Clark

[edit]

This mall building was opened in May 2006. After a two-month long discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines, the status quo prevailed: there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippine copyright law, sad to say. While there may be a potential for a dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia Foundation reps about possible introduction of freedom of panorama in the Philippines, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (as mentioned at this 2017 deletion request to a Dubai building, in a kingdom that has no total FOP), "deletion first is the right approach", even during active forums, as Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the artistic work's country of origin does not. File/s can be undeleted once FOP is introduced here, just like the cases of images of Armenian and Belgian architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in Armenia in 2013 and Belgium in 2016. And take note: a local upload at enwiki, w:File:SM City Clark.jpg, is marked as "Do not move to Commons" for this reason.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted But a careful examination of all these photos subject of nomination for deletion - 23 May 2015, 14:14:54 and 29 January 2014, 10:20:45 29 January 2014, 10:25:23 - the Legal Bar already did set in, hence, Extinctive prescription prohibits the deletion of all these photos; there is no Iota or dust of doubt whatsoever about the freedom of these files; ;4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez
Tons of SM Malls and other Malls photos would be stricken off and erased from Commons; tons of these published photos are now absolute properties of Commons for sharing of Wisdom towards the Newer Generations to come; future researchers and users will suffer irreparable damage and injury if the The precautionary principle is misapplied, misread or misinterpreted in the altar of technicalities; due care and utmost diligence should be exerted in the process of deletion or non-deletion of these photos; besides, these photos are Commercial establishments; SM Malls Prime Holdings have advantage in advertisements and business profits by publication of their Malls in Commons and others like Flickr, Photobucket inter alia;
Once deleted, this will be not only a test case but precedent for Mass Deletions to be started again and again by the Smart One and principal-child-parent-alter account who is just watching and carefully waiting to turn these deletions to Moro-moro, a farce, so to speak;
Who can prove or guess that the Smart Guy who apologized (and who has alter or Check user accounts in Commons and using Alibi, which is the weakest defense) ...
  •  Keep I object to the deletion on the ground that our Copyright law expressly contains the Extinctive prescription of 4 years unlike 3 years in American Jurisprudence; so from 2016 uploading, any and all photos of Commons can no longer be deleted much less be brought to the Special Court even by the creator artist or assigns of the artist sculptor, Dura lex sed lex; the IPO, DOJ and the Special Court will forthwith throw the case by Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash due to Prescription; even Commons lawyers will agree with our Copyright Law proviso on Extinctive prescription read in connection with the Implementing 2019 Circular on Special Courts' creation and jurisdiction over Copyright cases including FOP here; with this I register a very strong Legal objection to the Deletion regards Judgefloro (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Judgefloro: the four-year extinctive prescription only applies four years after the deletion (according to Clindberg when I asked him last night about your claims). Four years after the deletion of the copyright-infringing files is the time the architects, sculptors, or their heirs can no longer sue people be ause of their use of images of their artistic works for profit (like post cards or commercial T-shirt prints) without their authorization. By their continuing existence here, the exploitation is continuing and hence the economic rights of the architects or sculptors (or their heirs) are infringed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, @Judgefloro: , SM advertises via TV commercials, posters and billboard ads, and social media. There is no explicit indication that SM benefits by having images of their malls here. And also, content meant for advertising only is not allowed, per COM:ADVERT. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions in My Talk Pages by Herein Mass Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited a) Legal, b) Moral Reasons and in the c) LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia

  • CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;
  • However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;
  • On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;
  • When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;
  • I am 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;
  • It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Starter of Mass Deletion Requests, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:
  • If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;
  • Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;
  • As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator, I underscore, for clarity's sake - Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator are NULL and VOID ab Initio as they are a) Unlawful under Philippine Laws, and b) contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator is a Virtual and Desperate Attempt to Erase Valued Images or Most Important Cultural Heritage Treasures of the Philippines from Commons Ownership without any Valid Legal Basis, but just mere copy paste citations or Provisos of Laws, without any Jurisprudential Support - to be specific - rather trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted ...
  • In-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions;
  • WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Mass Nominations for Deletions, including your legal sayings without any Jurisprudential either Phil or US are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in Philippines Law and Fact;
  • In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions of Herein Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited Legal, Moral Reasons and in the LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or delete; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objections EVER to the Requested Mass Non-Stop Deletions of herein Nominator and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:09, 3 March 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 believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:SM_City_Clark&oldid=575579163"