Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requestsEdit

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 mallsEdit

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 chainCommons: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)

  •   Support I believe that also applies to the deleted image here. -- King of ♥ 04:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@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)

Yeah, that one looks pretty complex. -- King of ♥ 05:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@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.

Deleted files under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM Mall of Asia: (listing added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC))

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)

Update @King of Hearts, 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)

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)

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)

Photos of subjects probably OK using the low COM:TOO:
No copyrightable elements found or COM:DM:
No comment (some interiors or the Globe of SM MOA; pls help @King of Hearts:
The rest: probably not OK / unknown as of now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Additional undeletion requests from the requester

Some files that were deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shopping malls in the Philippines. Since I'm familiar with the subjects of the said photos, I might not need provisional undeletion.

- Per low COM:TOO

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Quezon memorial.jpgEdit

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)

  •   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)
  • @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)
@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)

"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)
  • 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)
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)
"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)
  • Does not matter if he was a government employee at the time. The question is whether the design was done as part of his duties as a government employee or just as a participant in a national contest. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@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)

  •   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, Sky Harbor: for confirmation of this seal. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps paging @Jeff G., Yann, Ankry, Jameslwoodward, 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)
@JWilz12345: So both offices replied and they were both unhelpful, to be honest. The Presidential Museum replied with the zoomed in version of the page of the same online book found in the Internet Archive while the National Archives said they don't have the book nor the building plans available in their collections. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You can find the images the Malacanang Museum sent me here. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

@Nat: according to Jsnueva1022 at User talk:Mrcl lxmna#Nomination to delete the Quezon Memorial Shrine photo, this monument "was built by the Philippine government, local government unit of Quezon City in specific, in honor to the late President Manuel Quezon." So I think this should now rest the case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction JWilz12345, it was actually built by the now-defunct Quezon Memorial Committee using funds obtained through a fund-raising campaign. But that is somewhat irrelevant since the crux of this discussion concerns the design of the monument. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: Per Liuxinyu970226 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine, {{PD-PhilippineGov}} might apply here. So QMC monument can be a work from the government. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Antipolo - National Shrine.jpgEdit

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)

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

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

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)

  •   Comment As the building was complete after 1951, we tend to err on the side of caution (e.g. COM:PCP), especially because it's a huge maybe and there is legal uncertainty. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment N.B. I'm not opposed to undeletion, but I am not in support of it either. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  •   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)
@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)
That might be a good idea. -- King of ♥ 16:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@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)

  • Carl stated right before: " It seems as though there are still questions on how treaties become operative law in the Philippines, though (given that the Philippine Senate did concur to the Berne Convention in 1950, effective 1951) it would be reasonably valid law. That link is a presidential proclamation from March 1955, which states that every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof." Architectural works between 1951-1972 are still a huge maybe and maybes are generally a "not ok" per COM:CARES and COM:PCP. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Yep. It could even be the case that architecture was protected but they still needed a copyright notice to get that protection, since technically the notice requirements were not removed until 1972. It sounds like there were no court cases in that period which could have answered that question. There are a bunch of "maybe" questions for that intervening period. It may be exacerbated by any type of de facto ignoring of that possibility -- i.e. maybe people use photos of buildings commercially all the time but nobody has bothered to sue over it. It would take losing an infringement case to change such behavior. And we're trying to guess how that would turn out with basically no precedent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MEAACT PHOTOEdit

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)

  •   Support undeletion. I see no way that any court would decide that any person or a project has committed a copyright infringement after the author has published the work with a public domain mark, even if they have also demanded attribution. However, the question that should be asked is not whether to undelete or not, but what licence/copyright tags should we apply. I think that in this case we should be safe and assume that it is {{attribution}} rather than any form of public domain attribution, I am unsure if the court would see it this way, but in this particular case it is better to be safe, especially since it does not inflience us actually having the images. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Josve05a --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • If we think they are enforcing that requirement through moral rights only, it could still be consistent. Even so, using {{Attribution}} might be more prudent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Smith Museum stained glass.jpg and File:Asiatown IT Park.jpgEdit

Previously discussed at here but separated from that request to continue to conversation. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


Oblation photo/s if de minimisEdit

The following images were deleted because no FoP in the Philippines. Nevertheless, if some or any of these photos show the copyrighted statue 'incidentally, and/or if the photo focuses more on the plaza and the Quezon Hall (1950 bldg.)', these can be restored. I used available evidence (mostly the "cryptic file names"), since deleted photos are virtually invisible to me. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Oblation back UPLB.JPG (DM or not?)

File:Magsaysay Park Davao.jpgEdit

Deleted because: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Magsaysay Park Davao.jpg (no FoP). But I assume it is a park, so COM:DM might apply. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Info From the image description: "This 25 meter long tri-pillar obelisk with the statue of Ramon Magsaysay is made by the Davao Chapter of the Philippine Veterans Legion and was turned over to the City Government of Davao in honor of the third President of the Republic of the Philippines". The same monument can be seen through Google Streetview [2]. Thuresson (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Per http://davaocitybybattad.blogspot.com/2011/10/magsaysay-park.html?m=1 , it was built sometime between 1957 (Magsaysay's death) and July 31, 1960, the year on which the Davao Chapter of the Philippine Veterans Legion turned over the monument to the City Government of Davao. Per the wording, it is assumed that they turned over the rights (even moral rights) to the city government ({{PD-PhilippineGov}}). Like the possible applicability of PD-gov for Manila Film Center and other structures in the Philippines now owned by the government. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Some Negros Oriental photosEdit

Following files were deleted because no FoP in PHL. But:

- Negros Oriental https://www.negor.gov.ph/capitol-building/ states that it was built in 1924, so this should be PD.

- COM:DM might apply.

- might be plain buildings (low COM:TOO) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Saint Raphael Church in Legazpi, Albay.jpgEdit

Deleted because: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saint Raphael Church in Legazpi, Albay.jpg (no FOP). But https://www.vigattintourism.com/tourism/articles/St-Raphael-Church-of-Legazpi says the present architecture is from 1834 (auto. PD). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Weak oppose The image is low resolution and shows also neighbouring objects that are likely copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Response: Despite low resolution, it is still a good photo. I assume it is also w:File:Saint Raphael Church in Legazpi, Albay.jpg. For the objects concerned, the flagpole and the resto has low COM:TOO, and the lamp pole should be OK as there are various photos depicting the same type being hosted here at Category:Roxas Boulevard and some other categories. Also the fixtures are not main subjects or secondary subjects (COM:DM) as the photo is about the church. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Two Robinsons photos by KatorseNiAmangEdit

Files were deleted because no FOP in the Philippines. But through the low COM:TOO reason which saved File:Sm megamall.jpg from deletion, it can be considered as having low TOO as a mall building and more utilitarian in purpose than a work of art. Are malls of the Philippines works of architectural art? I doubt this notion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bank of the Philippine IslandsEdit

Stated files were deleted because no FOP in the PHL.

- But if this is the w:Don Roman Santos Building (my assumption only), this should be PD and undeleted.

- if these are indeed having low COM:TOO as claimed by Ubcule, then these should be undeleted too. This is evidenced by the similarities of architectures of the branches of the bank, and I doubt they are of the same architectural firm.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

File:MRT-2 Betty Go-Belmonte Station Exterior 1.jpgEdit

File deleted because: no FoP in the Philippines (Commons:Deletion requests/File:MRT-2 Betty Go-Belmonte Station Exterior 1.jpg). But IMO train station buildings in the Philippines are ineligible for copyright as they are more utilitarian than artistic. Commons has hosted photos of train stations buildings (even exteriors) with no problems, from Category:Recto station to Category:Buendia station, amd from Category:Kamuning station to Category:Blumentritt station (Line 1). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church.jpgEdit

Per https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/Religious-Organization/omphdumaguete/about/, 1966 bldg. Absolutely falls under the exceptions at the updated COM:FOP Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


File:Fc Juárez logo.png File:México fc (1).svg File:México fc.png, File:Club Santos Laguna logo.png Edit

The reason why these images must be restored is that the users @EugeneZelenko: and @ManFromNord: deleted the images of the shields of soccer teams in Mexico for believing that they are not free. It is an error, because the PD-Coa-Mexico license allows uploading this type of images, because the license says: "it belongs to a" recognized "organization (which in that case a sports organization), so it is not protected by copyright, in addition they must take into account that this image Escudo del Cruz Azul AC.svg, was going to be eliminated for the same reason If it is not a free image, but if you see the file discussion a user says: "If you even know the Federal Copyright Law of Mexico, this logo of a recognized organization (football club) is not protected according to the Art 14 subparagraph VII and indicated in PD-Coa-Mexico ", in addition to the laws of https: //commons.wikim edia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico/es Commons: Copyright rules by territory / Mexico / es says in the section Not protected article VII states: "Reproductions or imitations, without authorization, of shields, flags or emblems of any country, state, municipality or equivalent political division, or denominations, acronyms, symbols or emblems of international governmental, non-governmental organizations, or of any other officially recognized organization ", therefore they can be uploaded with or without the permission of the author, so they must be restored because it is a mistake that anyone could have made, unfortunately in other Wikipedia pages in other languages ​​these images are wrongly uploaded as non-free, ignoring that the laws of Mexico allow uploading these images, examples:

  • https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: Tigres_UANL_logo_ (crest) .svg
  • https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: Mazatl% C3% A1n_FC_crest.png
  • https: //fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title = Fichier: Club_Le% C3% B3n_ (logo) .svg & lang = fr
  • https: //zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: Pachuca_Tuzos_logo.svg
  • That's it, I await your answers.

--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. But pinging the deleting admin @EugeneZelenko: for comments. Ankry (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that status of national sport organization assumes government ownership. It might be NGO created by regular folks, and I know such case personally. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: No evidence that FMF is a government entity. Additionally, teams, while the league they play in is governed by the FMF, have private owners. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Relisted: per Special:PermaLink/462755559#PD-Coa-Mexico_2 --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

File:AfricaMap2.jpgEdit

This file, deleted in 2017 per Commons:Deletion requests/File:AfricaMap2.jpg is one of a series of military history maps produced by the US Military Academy at West Point. Other maps of this particular series, documenting parts of the WW2 Western Desert Campaign, are in Category:Maps of World War II in Libya. Although the source links have by and large expired as the West Point website has gone through a couple of redesign iterations since, they can all be found here on archive.org. The present map is under 34b, with the url and the info on the bottom of the page, as well as the information on one of the referring pages, confirming their provenance as products of the US military. It'd be ideal to update all these maps with their vector versions which West Point has in the meantime produced. However, given the magnitude of this task and the public interest in not removing public domain content from Wikimedia Commons, I request that the present map be reinstated. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  Support Other maps from USMA are available at Category:World War II maps of the United States Military Academy. "History Department USMA" has published an updated and much higher quality version of this map as 34 B at westpoint.edu. Thuresson (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jcb, Hedwig in Washington: pinging users working on the DR, if they wish to comment. Ankry (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Lockscreen screenshot by user.jpgEdit

This is to verify that the screenshots in concern of the open source software was originally taken by myself to show the user interface to users of the wiki and is too my knowledge, NOT a copyright violation as per the Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivansu M (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment It looks like this is a screenshot of Apache-licensed software (POSP, a fork of AOSP). Screenshots of freely-licensed software are okay on Commons, assuming COM:SCOPE is satisfied. However, I'm not sure if the artwork is included with the software or covered by that license. clpo13(talk) 22:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

File:SSC Water Tank.jpgEdit

Deleted because: Commons:Deletion requests/File:SSC Water Tank.jpg (no FoP in the Philippines). But I think it is highly absurd to say that water tanks are copyrighted despite the fact that these don't possess artistic qualities (simplicity threshold). Low originality and more utilitarian than made for the so-called "artistic architectural/sculptural impressions". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Miserable Monday (30579989018).jpgEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per updated COM:PDM A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: Which copyright tag you find appropriate for this image? Ankry (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I do think {{PDMark-owner}} is appropriate. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The "owner" seems to be the subject and this is not a selfie... Ankry (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the employees of the Office of Michael John took it? As Michael John is a spokesperson of the Tea Party. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"Maybe" means COM:PCP and COM:OTRS, not {{PDMark-owner}}. Ankry (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: My doubts here concerned one image; I said nothing about the others. Ankry (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


Please undelete File:Salcombe_Cannon_Wreck_and_Moor_Sands_Sites.jpgEdit

Hi,

File:Salcombe_Cannon_Wreck_and_Moor_Sands_Sites.jpg

This image is a photograph I took. I uploaded it and added it to a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salcombe_Cannon_Wreck) but it was shortly flagged for deletion due to a lack of "source". I emailed in the relevant form but the image has still been deleted. I've no idea why it didn't have a source as I uploaded it using the usual upload wizard and filled in the form as I have with the rest of the photos I've uploaded.

Please undelete it.

Regards,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natritmeyer

@Natritmeyer: "No source" means here that the file is not the original version from your camera. You can either upload the original image here or provide it to OTRS together with a free license permission if you do not want to publish it for some reason. See COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Akshit bisht.jpgEdit

Indian film actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshit singh bisht (talk • contribs) 06:21, 21 September 2020‎ (UTC)

  1. Which page in Wikimedia the image is intended to be used in?
  2. As the image has already been published elsewhere, we need evidence of free license.
Ankry (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Passion of the Passion Fruit (Maraca Plantations, Kerala)Edit

This is an original photo taken by the company i am working for and is not a copy of any sorts. Please undelete this and make it avaliable again.

Thanking in Advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daralnoble (talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 September 2020‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline 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.
  •   Oppose We need evidence of free license grated by the copyright holder. You were notified of COM:OTRS procedure. After the appropriate permission is received and accepted, the image will be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Page-01.pngEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this person is very popular in Sri Lanka don't delete this Miyuru Bhashitha (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Miyuru Bhashitha: Can you point out a page in Wikimedia services where this image is intended to be used? Ankry (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
And, for {{Own}} images it is preferred to upload the original image from your camera. Ankry (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

undeletion request for Tasha Layton wikipedia page: File:Tasha Layton Pictured With Her Husband and Producer Keith Everett Smith.pngEdit

please undelete the following image as BEC Recordings nor Tasha Layton owns the rights to it (the image in question is owned by Ghetty Images)

Tasha Layton Pictured With Her Husband and Producer Keith Everett Smith.png

Like you say, the image is owned by Getty Images, who will sell limited rights for a few dollars, and somewhat less limited rights for a few more dollars. Now, where's your reason for undeletion? --rimshottalk 21:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: No evidence of free licence. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The person I am writing about appears in the picture and that it is not subject to copyrights.Edit

The person I am writing about appears in the picture. As a file it's not subject to any copyright. It has been sent to me by the photographer (the owner). Best regards --Meaning Translated (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Likely you are relating to File:Interpreting for world leaders.jpg, right? Apart from the fact that every photography is subject to copyright, the image, which you had uploaded claiming "Shared by Email from a friend", carries an expressed statement "Copyright: Rudy Nakache, Shotting Studio". So, Mr. Nakache needs to send an email from his businesse address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming the release of said image under a free license, such as CC-BY oder CC-BY-SA. --Túrelio (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Túrelio. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SPORTIVOHURACANAREQUIPA.pngEdit

Escudo del Club Huracán de la Pampilla Arequipa Perú — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertinedu (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 September 2020‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline 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.
  •   Oppose Own, personally created logos are out of COM:SCOPE. For official logos, we need either a free license evidence or expired copyright evidence. Ankry (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Geanloureiro.jpgEdit

Peço que a exclusão seja cancelada, para que possa ser incluída essa foto do Gean Loureiro, prefeito de Florianópolis. Ela é mais recente, está melhor posicionada. Agradeço desde já,

--Alessandra Pereira de Azevedo Souza (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alessandra Pereira de Azevedo Souza: While declaring a photo as Own work you need to provide the original photo, diectly from your camera. Ankry (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Grieves-V2.jpgEdit

This image was provided directly from the owner with all permissions for use directly from the Greives website: http://grievesmusic.com/ to the Grieves Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grieves --Does44 (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Does44: This contradicts your earlier declaration that you are the author and copyright holder of this photo. Providing false or incorrect information about copyright or authorship makes your other declarations unreliable. Moreover, for any image that was published elsewhere we need a free license declaration either through its initial publication site, or following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Michael Altfield in 2006 at the City of Kennesaw IT Server Room.jpgEdit

As noted in the original upload, I emailed the publisher and received explicit permission to publish this under CC-BY-SA license on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltfield (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline 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.
  •   Oppose @Maltfield: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is unable to accept forwarded permissions or proxy statements for legal reasons. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Michael Altfield in 2006 at the City of Kennesaw IT Server Room Switch.jpgEdit

As noted in the original upload, I emailed the publisher and received explicit permission to publish this under CC-BY-SA license on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltfield (talk • contribs) 02:14, 22 September 2020‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline 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.
  •   Oppose @Maltfield: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is unable to accept forwarded permissions or proxy statements for legal reasons. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Grafite no ônibus.jpgEdit

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grafite no ônibus.jpg three Commons admins, none of them fluent in Portuguese, decided that this photo, showing Portuguese-language graffiti, is outside of our scope — against the opinion of two Portuguese-speaking users. (A copyright concern was also raised, but quickly dismissed.) -- Tuválkin 04:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tuválkin: It was deleted, because nobody elaborated why it is in scope. Please, do so. Ankry (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)