Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Current requests

Shortcuts: COM:UDR • COM:UDELC • COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG and photos of several Philippine malls

File was deleted in 2012, according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG, the file was deleted because of no-FOP (freedom of panorama) in the Philippines. However, the deletion request for another mall of the same mall chain – Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sm megamall.jpg – ended up as "kept" because, according to @King of Hearts: , the SM Megamall lacks characteristics that makes it copyrightable. Quoting from King of Hearts' statement:

I just found the following in Sec. 186: "Copyright in a work of architecture shall include the right to control the erection of any building which reproduces the whole or a substantial part of the work either in its original form or in any form recognizably derived from the original: Provided, That the copyright in any such work shall not include the right to control the reconstruction or rehabilitation in the same style as the original of a building to which that copyright relates." While not directly related, I think this implies some sort of threshold. Think about it: Suppose someone built a building shaped like a grey cube, with no features, nothing at all. If someone else came along and built a grey cube-shaped featureless building (which is almost identical to the first by necessity of the description), is that a copyright violation? You could say, well, it's almost identical, and hence "recognizably derived from the original." But an idea that can be expressed in a short phrase like "grey cube-shaped featureless building" is merely a style, and so we have a contradiction. So we conclude that there ought to be some threshold of originality, only above which is an idea separable from its expression.

Using this statement by King of Hearts, it can be interpreted that SM Malls like SM Megamall have little copyrightable elements present. It can also be interpreted that all other malls belonging to SM can be considered as having little threshhold of originality, as evidenced by the successful defense in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smmarilaojf.JPG (for SM City Marilao). Then SM City Baliwag (and possibly other malls by SM Supermalls) also fall under the low or little TOO as said by King of Hearts for both SM Megamall and SM City Marilao. However, I might need the insights of some other Filipino Wikipedians regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: I'm not sure if this TOO rationale can be safely be considered for other photos of SM malls deleted, such as :File:SM_Aura_in_Bonifacio_Global_City.jpg found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shopping malls in the Philippines. But I can assume that this low or little TOO can be applied to other malls, judging from the case of SM City Marilao. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that one looks pretty complex. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: here is a (partial) list of deleted photos depicting malls by SM Supermalls. Since I'm not an admin, I can't identify whether they can be undeleted just like the case of SM Megamall pic and of SM City Marilao or they do not pass low TOO.

I don't know if other Philippine malls (e.g. Robinson's, Gaisano, and others) may have the same treatment as that of SM Malls. Comments and insights to be placed beside the aboveventries are very much welcome. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update @King of Hearts and Nat: per updated COM:FOP Philippines (using low COM:TOO standard in our country, proven by similarities of architectural styles in various common buildings in our country, usually by different architectural firms or people), I might also request the undeletion of the following two Robinsons Mall photos:

Unfortunately, casual searches on Google may find File:Robinsons Place Bacolod.jpg and File:Robinsons Place Manila Pedro Gil.jpg not passing the low TOO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another update Crossed out SM Aura, which seems to be too complex as King of Hearts said before. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just visited here. in my opinion, OPPOSE ALL. No matter how plain a bldg is, it is still copyrighted. pls see the deletion request about banks in the phils in which your senior moderator Jim said bldgs and structures, no matter how plain, deserves copyright protection. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quezon memorial.jpg

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]

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]

Some photographs by TheCoffee

I hereby request the undeletion of the following photographs that were deleted because of "no FOP in the Philippines":

For their FOP case page: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheCoffee

For the record, my first attempt to undelete the Cebu capitol building failed because of URAA copyright provision (Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-06#File:National Museum of the Filipino People.jpg). But after some discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Philippine buildings before 1972 and updated COM:FOP Philippines, older architecture in the Philippines are now considered as PD. To quote the updated passage: "Buildings completed prior to August 1, 1951. Philippine copyright law previously followed U.S. copyright law, which did not protect buildings until 1990." This is also in precedent with Clindberg's insight at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-01#File:Philippines National Museum.jpg and File:Supreme Court of the Philippines.jpg.

  • For the first photo, Cebu Provincial Capitol was finished and inaugurated on June 14, 1938 (last surviving person here was Juan Arellano, 1888–1960) [enwiki article]
  • For the second photo, the user uploaded it in 2009, during the time Department of Tourism (DOT) was headquartered at the Manila building which is now the en:National Museum of Natural History (Manila), completed in 1941 (designed by Antonio Toledo, who died in 1972). [building details per enwiki, date of death of Toledo per the aforementioned undeletion requests for both Philippines National Museum.jpg and Supreme Court of the Philippines.jpg]
As of this writing (when the files were temporarily undeleted): yes, it is indeed the same subject as the 1941 building which is now the en:National Museum of Natural History (Manila) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since both were built before 1950August 1951, photos of these buildings are 100% safe at Wikimedia Commons.

Also to request undeletion of the following photos by the same user:

  • File:Smith Museum stained glass.jpg. This is because according to his upload log, this is the photo of an object in the United States, where no FOP restrictions to buildings apply. To quote the description on the upload log: "Stained glass displays at the Smith Museum of Stained Glass Windows in Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois."
  • File:Asiatown IT Park.jpg - upload log reveals the description as "Mid-rise office buildings in Asiatown IT Park, Cebu City, Philippines." I might assume it can fall COM:DM as general view of a business district, not confined to a single building or two or twin buildings (pls. also see the existing photos of Makati CBD, Ortigas, San Lazaro, et cetera here), but I cannot exactly confirm this since deleted files are virtually "invisible" to non-admins. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    •  Support the first two. There should never be any URAA issues with photos of buildings, since the U.S. does not consider photos of buildings to be derivative works, so any URAA restoration of architecture is irrelevant for a photo of them -- FoP for buildings is purely an issue for the country of origin. I can't see the other two, though if the first was of a U.S. building, sounds like it should not have been part of the original DR. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paging @Clindberg: the files are now visible (albeit temporarily) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For "File:Asiatown IT Park.jpg," it might qualify Commons:DM if its scene is much akin to File:Ortigas Center Manila.JPG or File:San Lazaro Manila.jpg (as the description claims, as per upload log "Mid-rise office buildings in Asiatown IT Park, Cebu City, Philippines"). Again, non-admins like me cannot see deleted photos. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Provisionally restored to facilitate discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the stained-glass windows, I find no problems in hosting it on Commons since it is similar to others in the Category:Stained-glass windows in Illinois. It is also on US soil, not on Philippine soil.

New comment This photo refers to the w:Smith Museum of Stained Glass Windows (Category:Smith Museum of Stained Glass Windows) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Asiatown IT Park.jpg, I might use some foreign examples.

French example/s: File:La Défense de nuit, Paris, France 2.jpg. File was bundled at the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Défense, Paris April 2012.jpg, but was nonetheless kept because of being a "general view." Another might be: File:92400 Courbevoie, France - panoramio (1).jpg (DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:92400 Courbevoie, France - panoramio (1).jpg). I'll try to find some other examples from those nations with more restrictive or non-commercial FOP's. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UAE example (I don't know if this can apply): File:The Dubai Fountain & Burj Khalifa Pixabay.jpg - kept as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Dubai Fountain & Burj Khalifa Pixabay.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New comment from the requester during the temporary undeletion period: for the Asiatown photo, another factor to be considered might be the low COM:TOO for the building at the center (and possibly the two buildings to the left). (possible reference might be the DR of a mall photo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sm megamall.jpg). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New cmt also to use is the DR of another mall photo which ended up being kept: (possible reference might be the DR of a mall photo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smmarilaojf.JPG). Although in my opinion (and my observation to this photo while temp undeleted) the three Asiatown buildings in focus seem to be less elaborate than SM Marilao's, and such style is usually replicated in most other buildings in the Philippines, usually made or designed by different architectural firms. So I think these three Asiatown buildings have low COM:TOO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antipolo - National Shrine.jpg

Deleted because of no FOP (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antipolo - National Shrine.jpg for ref.) But enwiki article states the current structure was completed in 1954, with the year 1983 as the year of its promotion as a cathedral (promotion of status, but that didn't changed its fundamental architecture). Also per updated Commons:FOP Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per above and w:Antipolo Cathedral. The deletion reason provided in the DR was incorrect. Ankry (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE as following my stand at the bldg of the prptestant church below. 1951 to 1972 bldgs are not ok. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freudenberg-LouisJulius 05.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Anton Julius Winblad II and others, with the rationale "Outside of project scope". The image was, however, being used here: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Badebekleidung&diff=36641353&oldid=36321011. A file that is in use is by definition in scope. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That was 13 years ago. Let sleeping dogs lie. Thuresson (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly is this a reason not to restore an image that is potentially useful? (Note: I haven't seen the image, I only saw that it had been used). --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PaterMcFly: Do you find this image to be still needed on this page? Ankry (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the description I have is right, it shows people wearing 1930's swimwear, which could be useful, yes. I do not know the image though, nor do I know its quality, it might be inferior to other images. Bad quality is not a reason to delete images though (except in very obvious cases). --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily undeleted for discussion. The photo is definitely before 1918, so it cannot present 1930s suits. But there is another problem: at the moment I see no reason why is might be free. The cc license is clearly false as it cannot be by the photographer. And no evidence tor early publication. delete and undelete in 2038? Ankry (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is a bit different from what I expected, but still useful IMHO. According to the discussion here (almost at the end), the uploader is the heir of the original photographer, so from a copyright standpoint, everything should be fine. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Exterior of the Cathedral of the Holy Child (Aglipayan), Manila

The following files were deleted because of "no FOP in the PHL." Ref. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Exterior of the Cathedral of the Holy Child (Aglipayan), Manila. But per enwiki article, it was completed on May 8, 1969 (inauguration date) so it falls under the exemption as stated in the revised Commons:FOP Philippines (buildings completed before November 1972).

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply from requestor Despite being marked as "Maybe" for 1951–1972 buildings, it is still listed among the "exceptions" at Commons:FOP Philippines, which means they should be OK. The lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage, at least to buildings that are old enough. AFAIK potential copyright issues may arise at contemporary-era buildings (most esp. buildings built after the post-EDSA People Power revolution of 1986) and also to sculptures that are truly considered special works of art, such as the recent deletions of photos of famous Lion's Head in Baguio and the photos of the noteworthy Sigaw sa Pugad Lawin in Quezon City in early 2010s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We should make one global decision whether to accept Philippine buildings from 1951 to 1972, and change the "maybe" to "probably" or "probably not" once consensus is reached. Otherwise, decisions will be made based not on the merits of the case but on the inclination of the closing admin. We see this problem on graffiti and URAA cases as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: is there a need to open a new discussion about this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or another forum? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: update.Making an inference at Clindberg's analysis at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#PHL buildings from August 1951–November 1972, 1951–72 bldgs should be fine. "The Berne Convention does state though that it's matter for domestic legislation on how photos of architecture etc. would be protected, and that legislation did not exist until 1972. I'm not sure that the question of photos of buildings has ever come up in court there, so I'm not sure what the de facto treatment is -- it's possible photos of buildings are simply used without consequence there." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Just visited here. if your argument is correct Nat, them bldgs completed that period is NOT OK. Then OPPOSE. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MEAACT PHOTO

Per the recent consensus to accept COM:PDM as a license, I've been going through Category:Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests/deleted restoring any images that appear to be free of any other issues. I am seeking a second opinion on this batch of images by the Ministry of East Africa Affairs, Commerce & Tourism (MEAACT) of Kenya. They have applied "Public domain" (PDM) to the image on Flickr, but also indicated in the caption "MANDATORY CREDIT: MEAACT PHOTO / STUART PRICE", which contradicts the meaning of "public domain". My question is: should we accept these images? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:AnaMargaridadeCarvalho.jpg

The permission to use the image was granted, via OTRS, from the ticket 11380670.Leon saudanha (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Leon saudanha: FYI. Ankry (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:David Tan.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was deleted for potential copyright infringement. However, the copyright holder has agreed to license this image. Please let me know how I can prove this. Yqwong.benjamin (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yqwong.benjamin: Where can we find the copyright holder's free license permission? It needs to be verified. Ankry (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: @Yqwong.benjamin: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Iskenderun fk.png‬

File:Iskenderun fk.png‬ The logo is the official logo of the club. The Club is also a Joint Stock Company. Turkey has sent the necessary documents to the Football Association, the name of the club in the first meeting will be published on the official web site. A self-ignorant person named "Sakhalinio" interfered with our writing, although she had no knowledge. İskenderun FK A.Ş. All the information we have written is correct and official. Below are the official social media accounts of the club. https://twitter.com/iskenderunfk https://www.instagram.com/iskenderunfk/ --Sezgincevik (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done image not deleted yet. But it should be deleted as Fair use images are not allowed in Commons. Logos uploaded here must be under a free license from the actual copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Beata Maria Szydlowska.jpg

Please undelete this file. The image is available under the Creative Commons License.

Fedaykin7c2 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fedaykin7c2: An evidence, please: link to the license declaration by the photographer or an COM:OTRS ticket No. with a free license permission from the actual copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS.. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Magdalenapinkwart.jpg

I request undeleting photo File:Magdalenapinkwart.jpg. This is the photo I have taken and I am one and only person who have copyright to use it. I'm sharing it with Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia as a free source. --Stowarzyszeniedt (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Stowarzyszeniedt[reply]

If you are copyright holder and not the photorapher, we need an evidence of copyright transfer. Please, provide appropriate evidence together with a free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Grzegorz Micula.jpg

I request undeleting photo File:Grzegorz Micula.jpg. This is the photo I have taken and I am one and only person who have copyright to use it. I'm sharing it with Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia as a free source. --Stowarzyszeniedt (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Stowarzyszeniedt[reply]

 Not done: Per Ankry. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS.. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Sergiusz-pinkwart.jpg

I request undeleting photo File:Sergiusz-pinkwart.jpg. This is the photo I have taken and I am one and only person who have copyright to use it. I'm sharing it with Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia as a free source. --Stowarzyszeniedt (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Stowarzyszeniedt[reply]

As the photo was published elsewhere, we cannot rely on uploader's license declaration and we need a free license evidence: either at the initial photo poblication site or following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SergiuszPinkwart.jpg

I request undeleting photo File:SergiuszPinkwart.jpg. This is the photo I have taken and I am one and only person who have copyright to use it. I'm sharing it with Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia as a free source. --Stowarzyszeniedt (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Stowarzyszeniedt[reply]

 Question Is the map in the background under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 compatible license? How can we verify this? Ankry (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS.. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Sabinapoulsen.jpg

I request undeleting photo File:Sabinapoulsen.jpg. This is the photo that I have copyrights for, from the person on the photo and the photographer. The argument that it was found on the web elsewhere does not mean that I don't have copyright for it. I put it on my fanpage on Facebook and on my blog owcze.com. These are places I own and I'm responsible for all the copyrights. I have all the documents needed to prove it. I'm sharing this photo with Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia as a free source. --Stowarzyszeniedt (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Stowarzyszeniedt[reply]

@Stowarzyszeniedt: are you the photograpger as you claimed at upload? The permission from the subject is unrelated to copyright (it concerns personality rights only). As the photo was published elsewhere, we cannot rely on uploader's license declaration and we need a free license evidence: either at the initial photo poblication site or following COM:OTRS instructions. Note, that CC-BY-SA licenses require information who is the author, even if the author no longer is the copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:The Valentines band.jpg

This photo File:The Valentines band.jpg has been deleted, but it is a photo of my own band. Please undelete it, because i need it for our Wikipeda page. Thanx... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolezal98 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • @Dolezal98: Are you the photographer as you claimed? As the photo was published elsewhere, we cannot rely on uploader's license declaration and we need a free license evidence: either at the initial photo publication site or following COM:OTRS instructions. Note, that CC-BY-SA licenses require information who is the author, even if the author no longer is the copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jessé Lopes em 04 de agosto de 2020.png

Esta foto foi batida pelos fotógrafos oficiais da Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de Santa Catarina. A utilização das mesmas ficam a critério dos deputados. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardolima.sc (talk • contribs)

The right "to use" a photo is not the same as the right to license it.
We need an evidence that the photo is under cc-by-sa-4.0 compatible license, either as official information on the web site or by email from the actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Blue Lagoon Resources Inc. - Company Logo.png

Reasons for request:

I incorrectly uploaded the file to Wikimedia without providing adequate reasoning. I then reached out to Wikimedia to get clarification.

Article that will be using this image: Blue Lagoon Resources, Inc. Use of the image: This will be used as the main image in the sidebar for the article. It's purpose is to showcase the brand of Blue Lagoon Resources, it adds legitimacy to the company's image on Wikipedia.

1. Image is owned by Rana Vig, CEO and Director of Blue Lagoon Resources, Inc. 2. Source of the image: https://bluelagoonresources.com 3. The image is taken from the Blue Lagoon Resources website.

"Fair Use Rationale" Used for – the logo simply writes Blue Lagoon Resources, it's used for showcasing the brand of the company. Owner – Rana Vig, CEO & Director of Blue Lagoon Resources, Inc. owns this image. Website – https://bluelagoonresources.com Commentary – The logo was designed by and for Blue Lagoon Resources, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranavig (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Fair use is not permitted on Commons. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qamar Raza Markazi Profile pic.jpg

I want undelete file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qamarkhan92 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:PLL-phase-model-01.jpg

The deletion request was a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milich64 (talk • contribs)

@Milich64: I've closed the DR. --Minoraxtalk 12:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: procedural close. File not deleted nor under consideration for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haishen on Sep. 06, 2020.png

Well: 1) I thought that all sathelites were free, so I made olny a print from the image; 2) If the sath pertains to NOAA, the work is free. In general, NOOA has a free licence, as is marked in other photos of Wikemedia Com. Marcia Beatriz Einsfeld (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose © 2020 Neave Interactive Ltd. Terms of service: "Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials (information or software) on this Website for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only." Thuresson (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Liam_lewis_on_building.jpg

Hello. This is a picture of the Artist that should be on his biography. The reason I am requesting un-deletion is because the author/Photographer of the picture has signed and sent the release form.

(Resteven520 (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done: @Resteven520: Per Ticket:2020073010008644, permission was insufficient according to OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion of the file. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harald Hanisch 2018.jpg

This foto shows Prof. Harald Hanisch an is creat. commons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Reicher (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Info: Re-uploaded as File:Prof. Harald Hanisch 2018.jpg. --Achim (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:MojtabaPourmohsen.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020072610006707 regarding File:MojtabaPourmohsen.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per ticket:2020072610006707. Please update the file description page when you have processed the ticket. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanisha rolexx 0630181463.jpg

Hi -

My name is Illiana and am on the team for Tanisha Scott.

The image that has been deleted is owned in full by Tanisha and she requested that this image be used for her Wiki page.

She can email licensing permission for use of this photo across wikipedia if necessary.

We are looking to upload her new Wikipedia page to the public this week and need the image to be undeleted to complete the page.

Thank you!--Illi.bee (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=451231980"