Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Quek157

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 uploaded by Quek157 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The model has a copyright and these images are derivative works which infringe on the copyright. They cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the creator of the model via OTRS.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if you deemed so feel free to delete. no objections Quek157 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

but can I upload on en-wiki? Quek157 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Copyright Act, Current version as at 28 Apr 2018, Singapore,

Buildings and models of buildings 64. The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. [Aust. 1968, s. 66]

read in conjunction with

Publication (3) For the purposes of this Act — (a) the performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work; (b) the supplying (whether by sale or otherwise) to the public of records of a literary, dramatic or musical work; (c) the exhibition of an artistic work; (d) the construction of a building or of a model of a building; or (e) the supplying (whether by sale or otherwise) to the public of photographs or engravings of a building, of a model of a building or of a sculpture, shall not constitute publication of the work.

(https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CA1987) COPYRIGHT ACT (CHAPTER 63) (Original Enactment: Act 2 of 1987)

REVISED EDITION 2006 (31st January 2006)

Conclusion: The derivative rights seems not to be applicable. I'm not a lawyer but these seems to be reasonable grounds for it to be kept

--Quek157 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: withdrawn by nom. As far as I know, the Singapore law is the only one that makes an exception for models of buildings. I learn something every day here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]