User talk:JWilz12345

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, JWilz12345!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01:57 [update]
approx. 01:57 (or 13:57) displayed on clock/watch
Commons clock - made from this set [update]
Userboxes
UTC+8This user's timezone is UTC+8.
This user respects copyright, but sometimes it can be a major pain.


Philippine FOP[edit]

Hi JWilz12345. Since you seem quite experienced in dealing with COM:FOP Philippines matters perhaps you could assess the following files to see if they're OK for Commons.

  1. File:Regina Rosarii - panoramio.jpg
  2. File:Ugong Norte, Quezon City Metro Manila 19.jpg
  3. File:Hundred Islands Christ the Redeemer Statue.jpg
  4. File:Kamay ni Jesus.jpg
  5. File:PH-Manila-Rizal Monument.jpg
  6. File:BonifacioMonumentjf9933 13.JPG
  7. File:08419jfSumacab Este Cemetery Park Cabanatuan Cityfvf 24.JPG
  8. File:Statue of the Risen Christ in Tarlac.jpg
  9. File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 02.JPG

Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hello @Marchjuly: . For the image files you cited:
  1. First file, as well as all of Category:Regina Rosarii Institute of Contemplation in Asia:  Not OK. Publicly displayed in 2010 and authored by Jose Barcena Jr.;
  2. File:Ugong Norte, Quezon City Metro Manila 19.jpg -  Not OK. Authored by w:en:Eduardo Castrillo: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:People Power Monument. The category must be reviewed too if there are substantial presence of the sculpture in each of the images.
  3. Third file ("File:Hundred Islands Christ the Redeemer Statue.jpg"), nominate it for deletion as an image from Facebook (facebook metadata). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sandy Talag.jpg.
  4. File:Kamay ni Jesus.jpg,  Not OK: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kamay ni Hesus Church Lucban, Quezon.JPG.
  5. File:PH-Manila-Rizal Monument.jpg, OK. The sculptor involved died in 1919, and possibly if it was registered, its registration was valid for 10 years only consistent with the Spanish law from 1879. See the attached PD-PH template itself.
  6. File:BonifacioMonumentjf9933 13.JPG, OK. See a reply of Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights at this Facebook post of our Intellectual Property Office, which is the basis of the attached PD-PH template.
  7. File:08419jfSumacab Este Cemetery Park Cabanatuan Cityfvf 24.JPG,  Not OK. The memorial park opened in 2004, and the sculpture is apparently authored by w:en:Napoleon Abueva, see this information text at the entrance.
  8. File:Statue of the Risen Christ in Tarlac.jpg, likely  Not OK. The Monasterio de Tarlac complex was completed in 2000, and it can be assumed that the statue, inspired from copyrighted Christ the Redeemer Statue of Brazil, was unveiled during the same time/period.
  9. File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 01.JPG, OK. The uploader is the sculptor himself: see also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-09#File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 01.JPG.
Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for looking at these. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind starting a DR for the questionable ones since you seem to have been able to sort their provenance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly perhaps you are aware about the attempt here to introduce FOP (documemted at meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama. A large part of that metawiki page is contributed by me; therefore, I thought of putting more deletion requests on hold for a while in hopes that FOP will be introduced here soon. But the problem is the pertinent bills in our lower House (House of Representatives) – HB799, HB2672, HB3838 – have been pending since last year, and recent support by various stakeholders here are towards a bill (HB7600) that is purely focused on countering online piracy and giving the Intellectual Property Office the power to order the take down of erring websites or block access to websites found to violate intellectual property rights of Philippine works. There is no FOP clause in this more widely-supported bill. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies for not responding sooner. If you feel a DR for these files should wait due to the impending passing of new FOP laws for the Philippines, then that's fine with me; however, I don't think Commons should wait too long for the Philippine government to act. Files that are deleted for this reason can, afterall, always be restored at a latter date if needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly I may leave the decision of nominating these and other image files of the Philippines to other users. If I feel that there is little chance of FoP being introduced here, then there is no chance of waiting for these and other images to be deleted from public view here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly also, it is sure that some users may accuse me of not being faithful to the FOP initiative, of which I am a part of. Perhaps Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stained-glass windows, paintings and statues of Saint Andrew Kim Taegon in the Philippines would be my last PH-FOP-related deletion request, unless something unfavorable happens (like FOP being not passed as part of amendments or FOP passed is no longer suitable for Wikimedia, like non-commercial or traditional media only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly I think I have to nominate some by more famous Filipino artists, whose heirs may have the power to launch lawsuits. As U.S. lacks FOP too, the first line of defense for Commons, {{Not-free-US-FOP}}, is not usable here and those images may need to be taken down to prevent potential lawsuits from heirs or estates of National Artists. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize for not responding to your pings earlier. I'm not quite sure if you're asking me a question about one of these images or are just discussing the general situation related to them. Commons is a volunteer project and you need not nominate any images for deletion if you feel doing so might have real world consequences or might otherwise cause problems here on Commons between you and other editors. Anyway, once again. I appreciate your original assessment of the above-listed images. I'll keep that assessment in mind moving forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Golden langur region1909 IGImap.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Enyavar (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use in Italy[edit]

Hi. I have a question for you. I was just reading this article from the Library of Congress about an update to Italian copyright law in 2021. According to it under the Educational and Research Use section "Research institutions are authorized to extract text and data from works or other materials available in networks or databases to which they have lawful access, to reproduce them for the protection of cultural heritage and for scientific research, and to communicate the results of their research expressed in new original works to the public. An exception that being Online Content Sharing Service Providers who profit directly or indirectly from the material. But apparently it explicitly says providers of access to nonprofit online encyclopedias or cloud services that allow works protected by copyright to be shared among multiple users aren't included in that.

I'm not sure if that means it would allow users to directly upload images of copyrighted works to the Italian Wikipedia, but if I'm reading it correctly Italian Wikipedia could copy and use images uploaded to Commons and other websites under the justification of "protection of cultural heritage and for scientific research" without there being an issue. Which would essentially allow for fair usage as long as the images comes from the internet. I think that would possibly help resolve the whole thing with us and them when it comes to FOP in Italy. They could re-upload the images to the Italian Wikipedia for the purposes of "cultural heritage and for scientific research" and we could delete them on our end since there's no FOP in Italy and we aren't an encyclopedia or allow for fair use. I was wondering what you think about it though since you have more experience with this stuff then I do. Adamant1 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1 I think it is best to have this discussion on VPC, since more users should be aware of this update to copyright law. From the looks of it though, it does not seem to benefit Commons in terms of hosting of copyrighted works. We can be considered as an Online Content Sharing Service Provider or OCSSP. OCSSP's are defined as "providers who store and give the public access to large quantities of copyrighted works or other protected materials, which their users upload, when the works or other materials are organized and promoted to profit directly or indirectly from them." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm probably going to do that at some point but I wanted to know what you thought first since your more expericed in the area. While I agree that we would probably be a OCSSP, it's more about the Italian Wikipedia being able to host images under the guise of "protection of cultural heritage and for scientific research" then anything to do with us. Although that would allow us to delete copyrighted, or questionably copyrighted, images of Italy on our end without Italian users being screwed in the process since they could just re-upload them to Italian Wikipedia. I'm probably naive, but I'd like to think issues like the ones brought up in the Village Pump discussion about FOP in Italy could be resolved in a way that benefits everyone by allowing the images to just be uploaded to Italian Wikipedia while being deleted on our end. Otherwise one side of the whole thing is getting screwed. Either we are by letting Italian users keep images that have extremely questionable copyright status' or they are because we would be deleting a lot of images that are being used in Wikipedia articles and would otherwise be kept if we allowed for fair use. Anyway, that's just my thought on the matter. I'll start a discussion about it on the VPC at some point though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 I have started a new subsection on VPC, no need to add. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]