Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Zuellig Building

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:Zuellig Building

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama building is completed in 2013 or post 1972 so it is assumed NOT OK. Phil copyrights law doesnt allow reuse of photos of copyrighted bldgs and culptures other then fair use and non commercial use.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Keep see my reasoning below. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos

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 controvery 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; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say either put this DR on hold or Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and

In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Keep " FOP matter update: Rejoinder Comment with Query: if the IPO or Bureau Director and or DOJ Secretary would rule in my or our Favor (saying that all the Deleted Photos should be Undeleted and Categorically would Rule and not Decline, that - Uploading of Photos covered by FOP in Commons or anywhere is not Infringement of Copyright Laws or Rules and are Trifles or De Minimis and would never reach the Courts) would all the Mass Deletions and or Deleted Photos be Undeleted ? I respectfully suggest that you can bring this matter to the New Discussions on FOP, the Commons Admins or Village Pumps which ever is the turf appropriate
I already talked with the IPO lawyers and they told me that they agree with my Cited Sycip Salazar secondary authorities that all your Mass Deletions are covered by Trifles or De Minimis, meaning Copyright Law does not prohibit Uploading in Commons on FOP; your position has no leg to stand while my OBJECTIONS to your Mass Deletions are supported not only by a) USA Jurisprudence b) very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar, c) verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and d) tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter; an editor here cannot just say this or that is Copyright law; I cited Statutory Construction and Legal Maxim rules, while you just copy paste the Law; nobody can say this is the meaning of the Copyright law without laying the predicate; even if there is no square ruling from the Supreme Court on FOP uploading, still, the secondary authorities and Learned lawyer's writings I quoted suffice to say that all your Mass Deletions have no leg to stand: I await the IPO and its Bureau on a Specific Ruling backing the verbal replies they gave to me and or DOJ Secretary's Opinion which is over and above the IPO's would be rulings; In Time, all our deleted photos would be undeleted, since they are just in the files of Commons;

Stop mass nominations Mrcl lxmna case

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week Several users asked you to stop with the disruptive mass deletion nominations, you didn't, so now you're stopped by me for a week. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: This user cannot stop, please see this edit just 8 minutes ago. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.

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.

This is the best evidence in the 1989 Rules of Evidence as amended in 2019 that the Mass Deleter Nominate Admitted against his or her interest vis-a-vis the Cybercrime activity punished under the 2010 Cyber Law of the Philippines

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;

How does an 18th Century Statue of Pampanga De La Merced which is a National Treasure be clothed with Copyright? How, How and How?" sincerely respectfully submitted; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except: Keep File:08983jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building One Roxas Triangle Paseo de Roxas Gil Puyat Makati Avenuesfvf 36.jpg as a plain scenery (no focus on Zuellig Building) and Weak keep for the two images that only show close-up of the part of the structure — File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 13.jpg and File:09032jfUrdaneta Zuellig Building Sultan Muhammad Kudarat Paseo de Roxas Makati Avenuesfvf 14.jpg. For most, unfortunately, these unambiguously focus on the building, and while some can be said as to only focus a specific part, I don't know if the precautionary principle will apply as these show large portions of parts of the building. After extensive discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines, the status quo prevailed: there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippine copyright law. Maybe an amendment to the IP Code of the Philippines will change things, but the proposed amendment still didn't contain any FOP provision, and per a decision at this UAE FOP-related deletion request "deletion first is the right approach in accordance with Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle": Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the work's country of origin (the Philippines) does not. And for future reference, according to enwiki the architect is "Skidmore, Owings and Merrill; W.V. Coscoluella & Associates". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, except three. Ə XPLICIT 12:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Zuellig Building

Files in Category:Zuellig Building

Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos

Navigation menu

Search