Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/29

• Note: FOP-related requests have been split to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (FOP-related). However, to preserve existing references to these requests, all numeric disambiguations have been preserved. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seem not to be own work (upload pattern mismatch, exif, ...)

• File:NationalShrineofOurMotherofPerpetualHelpjf 01.jpg
• File:NationalShrineofOurMotherofPerpetualHelpjf 02.jpg
• File:OurLadyofLightParishjf 04.jpg
• File:OurLadyofLightParishjf 03.jpg
• File:OurLadyofLightParishjf 02.jpg
• File:OurLadyofLightParishjf 01.jpg

McZusatz (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I went and called 2 offices on the matter. I consider that the USA laws and Commons are the same, and Philippine copyright laws were borrowed from USA. Hence, I needed some enlightenment on the legal ramifications on copyright law. Specifically, the issue here is whether or not these uploaded images violated copyright or any other laws? Let me share my legal opinion and thoughts on the matter. First, the CBCP allows reproduction of any and all religious images. Second, for me, original images are those like mine which are from my cameras SONY 2008 and NIKON AW100 inter alia, where the size is very big that is 4,600 x 3,400 or 6 Mb+. A photographer would not in his right sense give to the internet for public use or consumption, like Facebook, etc. big or his or her original images. I conclude therefore that the religious images I got from the internet are even copied from derivative works of originals, since they are so small. In fact, the reasons I uploaded them here in Commons are: a) I love the sun images, and I desire to share beautiful pics in Commons when the sun fails me in my photography, b) I test the speed of the falling internet here, and c) most of the times, I fail to meet on time the parish priest of the Church, so I get permission from the office or the parishioners to get their pics of the this church or the priest. However, they would not allow their names to be revealed for privacy. Second, I asked about 3 lawyers of a legal department of the Copyright law office, and they opined that images, like books must comply with copyright deposit rules and regulations issued due to the Law requirement. More importantly, photographs of churches of priests and parishioners in churches when uploaded or copied for religious and moral reasons, etc. are not violative of the law, especially when the size is so small. Why should I get from the internet small images when I personally spend huge sums to go to the church and landmark sites, and spent more money in uploading these images from 11 pm to 4am daily more or less? In good faith, I love them and I ponder legally, that there is no obstacle in law, when I share them in Commons, Fair use so to speak. I do have the express but verbal permission of the CBCP and the churches to use their pictures especially as I said, I failed to capture a sunny facade of the church and the parish priest was away when I shot. Let me put here some parts of the law as basis of my above submissions: [Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines[1] and [2] - Republic Act No. 8293. K: Photographs and cinematographic works made in a process similar to photography - Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code provides for fair use of copyrighted material. The criteria for fair use is almost identical to the fair use doctrine in United States copyright law, with the exception that even unpublished works qualify as fair use under Philippine copyright law.[3]SEC. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. – 185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use. CHAPTER IX DEPOSIT AND NOTICE SEC. 191. Registration and Deposit with National Library and the Supreme Court Library. –SEC. 192. Notice of Copyright. –xxx.)]

IN FINE, I respectfully submit the above legal argument. And I stress that I failed to get a written legal opinion from the CBCP and our Copyright law office. I think this mater had already been exhaustively talked about or discussed by the editors in [4] Tambayan. I have no objection to the fair discretion of older editors to delete my above images, for the good of Commons. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

com:fair use is not allowed on commons therefore they need to be   Delete. (Fair use is allowed on en.wiki, though) --McZusatz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyrightviolations (com:fair use) McZusatz (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious early uploads of Ramon FVelasquez. While his recognized tool is Nikon COOLPIX AW100 (or Sony DSC-T200 for his 2012-era uploads like File:Churchpuljf.JPG), the following nominated images have either different camera models or are missing exif metadata (and some very small resolutions). These may have come from his apprentices or other people then passed on to him. No indication of proper copyright transfer via COM:VRTS correspondence if this is true. Likely similar case to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez#Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 2. See the nomination proper for added details.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be noted that Ramon FVelasquez's reply to the second thread above seems self-contradictory: "Second, for me, original images are those like mine which are from my cameras SONY 2008 and NIKON AW100 inter alia, where the size is very big that is 4,600 x 3,400 or 6 Mb+." and afterwards then "I conclude therefore that the religious images I got from the internet are even copied from derivative works of originals, since they are so small." Plus he introduced the concept of fair use, even if fair use is eternally not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of non-descript darkness and objects/person by a former sock of Judgefloro (talk · contribs). Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. More usable photos are found at Category:Casa Hacienda de Tejeros.

• File:TejerosConventionjf3547 03.JPG
• File:TejerosConventionjf3530 02.JPG
• File:TejerosConventionjf3530 01.JPG
• File:TejerosConventionjf3512 13.JPG
• File:TejerosConventionjf3512 07.JPG
• File:TejerosConventionjf3512 06.JPG

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality, objects obscured by dark side of the objects not facing the sunlight, and the sunlight caused glare in the image. COM:NOTUSED and out of COM:SCOPE.

• File:Zambalesajf0146 20.JPG
• File:Zambalesajf0146 21.JPG
• File:SantaCruz,ZambalesChurchjf9958 08.JPG
• File:SantaCruz,ZambalesChurchjf9958 07.JPG

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]