Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:United Nations station

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:United Nations station

[edit]

1984 building. No freedom of pano in the Phils. Person behind this architectural work is Francisco manosa.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proof: https://lrmc.com.ph/2017/02/16/lrmc-boosts-passenger-service-with-station-operation-improvements/

"Coinciding with the unveiling of the new Doroteo Jose is the opening of the LRT-1 exhibit, featuring the work and vision of National Artist for Architecture, Architect Francisco “Bobby” Mañosa. He designed the LRT-1 stations in the early 1980s, during the time of the train line’s construction.

The exhibit in Doroteo Jose is aimed to educate students, architecture enthusiasts, and LRT-1 riders on the roots of the train line. Mañosa’s sketches of the LRT-1’s original design are on display, as well as news clippings and information, and a scale model of the train."

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:LRT1 UN station plaza view.jpg

The focus of this image (LRT1 UN station plaza view.jpg) is not entirely the station. It also has Taft Avenue within the frame. It just so happens that I named it to distinguish it with the rest of the images I am uploading. And going back to this point, the subject of the matter you are pointing out is regarding United Nations station, and not Doroteo Jose station. It is indeed public knowledge that Mañosa was the architect for these stations, but these train stations are 1) based on the vernacular "bahay na bato", 2) the overall structure is utilitarian, 3) while this may be based on a local and distinct architectural style, the LRT stations have more modern elements than that of a bahay na bato. Have a good day. – Higad Rail Fan (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also let me mention here that the LRT stations are part of a state-owned entity; that is, LRTA. LRMC, the private operator of Line 1, only focuses on operations and management, but the owner is, again, a government agency. – Higad Rail Fan (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Higad Rail Fan: this is not utilitarian. It is a work of art by Manosa who was inspired from bahay kubo design. If bahay kubo design was just a plain concept why did he achieve the distinction of being a national artist? https://news.abs-cbn.com/ancx/culture/spotlight/10/26/18/francisco-tronqued-maosa-the-filipinos-architect

Architecture no matter how plain but if this shows some talents of the architect ibcluding architectural conceptualization is copyrighted.

The stations are seen at http://www.manosa.com/~manosa/teddy/project.php?/architecture/institutional/light-rail-transit/&id=31 which implies that his firm is the heir of copyright of these stations. Can you also prove that Manosa and his firm themselves transferred copyright to the public and the government through a written contract or an agreement of some sort? Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic elements cannot be copyrighted. The basis of the building is the vernacular bahay kubo. The bahay kubo is an idea, a concept – it has been shared by generations and cannot be copyrightable. What is infringing is if I claim Mañosa's design as mine and earn from it. :) Higad Rail Fan (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is correct to some degree, but doesnt reflect the fact that works made by Manosa are copyrightable as evidenced by the inclusion of the select LRT stations on the website of his company, effectively implying the heirs of the architecture of the manila elevated rail stations. Use an overseas example. The Louvre pyramid in a country that expresses their arts and culture in an impressive way, and i can see that the philippines strongly expresses their culture and arts also. According to this website https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/architecture/louvre-pyramid.htm the pyramid by the late IM PEI may have been inspired by the egyptian culture which reflects some of the famed museum's collections. Pyramidal forms were also chosen for some French monuments, cenotaph and other prograns dating as far as 1700s. The visit of Napoleon to Egypt also justified the choice of a pyramid entrance at the louvre. And yet that particular pyramid is a copyrighted work according to the Frenchmen and the Parisians. Summarize my points, yes basic design concepts like the bahay kubo are not copyrighted, but the products of the architects using or inspired from these design concepts can be copyrighted, as products of their artistic and creative hardwork. If these works are not creative or ordinary, how come Manosa achieved recognition for his bahay kubo-inspired works of architecture? Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:39, 24 October 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

[edit]
* (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.
[edit]


  • 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) 07:43, 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, 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]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:United_Nations_station&oldid=678969960"