Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Currency

I don't believe the "Not OK" interpretation of the counterfeiting restrictions is correct, especially when it comes to coins. It's part of their anti-counterfeiting law, so it's a non-copyright restriction, so it does not affect the "free" determination -- it only matters if actually hosting an image here would violate that law. The full regulations are here. The part of law authorizing the regulations is:

Authority. — Section 50 of R. A. 7653, provides that:
"The Bangko Sentral shall have the sole power and authority to issue currency, within the territory of the Philippines. No other person or entity, public or private, may put into circulation notes, coins or any other object or document which, in the opinion of the Monetary Board, might circulate as currency, nor reproduce or imitate the facsimiles of Bangko Sentral notes without prior authority from the Bangko Sentral.
"The Monetary Board may issue such regulations as it may deem advisable in order to prevent the circulation of foreign currency or of currency substitutes as well as to prevent the reproduction of facsimiles of Bangko Sentral notes.
"The Bangko Sentral shall have the authority to investigate, make arrests, conduct searches and seizures in accordance with law, for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the currency.

For coins, then, then law only disallows objects which "in the opinion of the Monetary Board, might circulate as currency" -- so that is limited to the physical objects. They have further rights of restriction when it comes to facsimiles of banknotes, separate from coins, which makes it more possible there are issues there.

The regulations for coins are:

E. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF LEGAL TENDER PHILIPPINE COIN — A reproduction of a facsimile or any object in metal form bearing the likeness or similitude of legal tender Philippine currency coin or any part thereof, without prior authority from the Governor of Bangko Sentral or his duly authorized representative.
[...]
Reproduction and/or Use of Facsimiles of Legal Tender Philippine Currency Coins
SECTION 10. No person or entity, public or private, shall design, engrave, make or execute in any other manner, or use, issue, or distribute any object whatsoever bearing the likeness or similitude as to design, color or the inscription thereon of any legal tender Philippine currency coin or any part thereof, in metal form, irrespective of size and metallic composition, without prior authority from the Governor, BSP or his duly authorized representative.

Both restrictions are specifically for reproductions "in metal form" only. Uploads here, being virtual, are not in metal form, so they would be OK. So it seems like photos of coins are fine (provided copyright is OK).

The regulations for banknotes are:

D. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF LEGAL TENDER PHILIPPINE NOTE — A reproduction of a facsimile or any illustration or object bearing the likeness or similitude of legal tender Philippine currency note or any part thereof, without prior authority from the Governor of Bangko Sentral or his duly authorized representative.
[...]
Reproduction and/or Use of Facsimiles of Legal Tender Philippine Currency Notes
SECTION 8. No person or entity, public or private, shall design, engrave, print, make or execute in any other manner, or utter, issue, distribute, circulate or use any handbill, advertisement, placard, circular, card, or any other object whatsoever bearing the facsimile, likeness or similitude of any legal tender Philippine currency note, or any part thereof, whether in black and white or any color or combination of colors, without prior authority therefore having been secured from the Governor, BSP or his duly authorized representative.
SECTION 9. The reproduction and/or use of facsimiles or any illustration bearing the likeness or similitude of legal tender Philippine currency notes referred to in the foregoing section may be authorized by the Governor, BSP or his duly authorized representative, for printed illustrations in articles, books, journals, newspapers or other similar materials and strictly for numismatic, educational, historical, newsworthy or other purposes which will maintain, promote or enhance the integrity and dignity of said note, provided, however, that any such facsimile or illustration shall be of a size less than three-fifths (3/5) or more than one and one-half (1½) times in size of the currency note being illustrated and that there will be no deviation from the purpose for which the notes will be used.

This is a less clear, but most references still seem to be about "objects" or at least other printed reproductions which have a size, not necessarily virtual ones -- it seems limited to "any handbill, advertisement, placard, circular, card, or any other object whatsoever", which seems to be physical reproductions. I could see further arguments here, but on the other hand, there can be no "fair use" claim either without explicit permission -- those would violate the law just as much as images on Commons. It would appear that we have had illustrations of that money either here or Wikipedia for a long time without comment from the Philippine government.

The U.S. has some similar regulations on size -- see the court case Regan v. Time, Inc.. That court case struck down the "purpose" language similar to the above that the U.S. law used to have, as it was unconstitutional (something was illegal or not based purely on the government's judgement of purpose). The U.S. law also did mention photographic reproductions, which this does not, but now have added that "one-sided" reproductions are OK for U.S. notes, which would seem to avoid any problems with uploads here (and the court case was over a one-sided illustration effectively, so they have pulled back from those). The Philippine regulation does not allow for those, but the rationale behind this and the U.S. restrictions are very similar, though the regulation does seem more like the older U.S. ones. It's possible Wikimedia could get blanket permission for uploads here, to be more clear. But I'm not sure that virtual images qualify for the wording in that regulation, which talk about objects and being of a particular size, which virtual images are not. Obviously printing out these images would have implications, so we should mention these restrictions similar to {{PD-USGov-money}}. I'm not sure if there are examples of Philippine court cases over this section which would give further clarity -- any further information would be welcomed. Without that though, I'm not sure we can confidently say that uploads here are illegal to the point we should delete them. Provided we have {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, seems like we should allow them unless further information comes to light. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Secondly, the restrictions are for "legal tender" only. It sounds like all banknotes before the 2010 style have been demonetized, which would take them out of these regulations as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

The history is:

  • The section on Philippines currency was started with this diff by User talk:Tribu akru on 17 July 2012, reproducing the bank rules without comment.
  • With this diff User:Seb26 introduced a question mark and an assertion that "These restrictions (not freely reproducible, under specific purposes only prohibiting non-commercial, and no derivative works) mean Philippine banknote and coin designs are not appropriate for Commons."
  • With this diff IP 58.178.124.88 changed the question mark to NotOK.
  • The content was moved to this page without change by User:Aymatth2 on 24 November 2018.

The 2015 version of the Philippines IP Code does not mention coins or banknotes, but says: "SEC. 176. Works of the Government. - 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit." The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) says here "The BSP enjoys fiscal and administrative autonomy from the National Government in the pursuit of its mandated responsibilities." It could perhaps be argued that the BSP is not the government, and can assert copyright, but that is probably a stretch.

The language of the bank's regulations implies a ban on unauthorised physical copies of currency, but does not exclude electronic copies. I do not think we can assume electronic copies are allowed by the bank just because the mention of physical dimensions is inappropriate. The regulations are non-copyright restrictions, but in my view we should not ignore them if by doing so we would violate the law of the country of origin related to counterfeiting, even if an electronic image would have no real value to a counterfeiter. I would say we should allow pictures of coins and of notes that are no longer legal tender, but should not allow pictures of current notes. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

FOP

Hello. I can notice that Judgefloro (who appears to be Judge w:Florentino Floro) seems to suggest that his photos of copyrighted 3-D works of art are "not infringing copyright of architects, designers, etc." because of the "distance between him and the subject." See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:"Beyond Broadcasting" Walk of Fame - GMA Network Center and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Apolinario Mabini Monument (National Library of the Philippines, Ermita, Manila). He claims that copyright infringement only occurs if "very close-up views" of statues etc. are photographed, but normal views of such 3-D objects are OK. He seems to suggest also that normal photography distance constitutes a form COM:DM in the Philippines.

This despite the existing statement of the law (RA 8293) that implicitly includes photography as one of the "reproductions," and such reproductions are permissible only for fair use (e.g. broadcasting, private education, insertion of images in unfree [all rights reserved] books, and also extended to online blogs using low resolution pictures, and the like).

  • Should we reinstate this former excerpt here?

Ijon met with the Director of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in November 2011, and asked about FoP. The Director said "The law is silent on the matter", and said they are waiting for case law to settle the question one way or another. The matter has not reached the supreme court yet.

  • Or should we also consider his statements as legally binding considering he has worked in the judicial field. @Jeromi Mikhael: said to me (at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Florentino Floro): "Any opinions that he made, for me, would be valid, as he had an extended knowledge on law." Maybe time to consider the prevailing "status quo" on Freedom of panorama in the Philippines, considering that there is lack of actual architectural / sculptural copyright cases filed in the Philippine courts?

Paging @Aymatth2: who responded before at the generalized FOP listing for Asia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • In many countries buildings are copyrighted, meaning a builder cannot erect an identical or very similar building, but that does not extend to 2D drawings, paintings or photographs of the building. A photograph of a 2D work could diminish the value of that work, because a potential purchaser might buy the photograph rather than the original. That obviously would not apply to a photograph of a building.
  • See COM:FOP US: United States copyright explicitly allows photos and other pictorial representations of buildings. Philippine law is based on US law, but I do not see any similar provision.
  • Architecture or buildings are mentioned in four sections of the 2015 law:
    • Sec.173(g) says works of architecture are original works, protected from the moment of their creation
    • Sec.221(c) says copyright protection applies to works of architecture erected in the Philippines.
    • Sec.186 says "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..."
    • Sec.187.2(a) say private reproduction for research and private study is allowed, but not reproduction of a work of architecture in the form of a building.
  • I am very uncomfortable with relying on a Wikimedia user's report of a verbal statement by a subject expert. A published statement would have much more weight. But in this case the law does seem ambiguous about whether a photograph of a building would be considered a copy. I think it probably would not, but our general policy is to take the most pessimistic interpretation, meaning we should assume FOP does not apply.
  • COM:De Minimis would apply, so a photograph that included small parts of several buildings in a street scene full of people and vehicles should be o.k., but a photograph where the building was a prominent part of the composition would not be o.k.

Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: perhaps I might reinstate the passage "User:Ijon met with the Director of the..." at that section. It should stress out to all Filipinos that there is no FOP in our country. That very issue is being ignored by many Filipino Facebook users, some of them even saying that "There are different house rules on fair use between the Philippines and Wikipedia Commons..." which I got from a Facebook user when I raised the issue of FOP in the Philippines on the soc med site. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The Philippines did join the Berne Convention (and add architecture as a protected type of work) at very different times than the U.S., so that part of their law is not necessarily similar. It does seem as though Berne countries without an explicit FoP provision would technically have such photos as derivative works. On the other hand, the Philippines does have U.S.-style fair use (they adopted the U.S. text into their law). That would likely cover a wide range of non-commercial uses, I'm sure (similar how it's generally fine to put up photos of copyrighted sculpture in the U.S. -- it's just when you, say, sell shirts with such a photo on it that it becomes a problem). So it's basically correct that it's Commons policy (needs to be OK to use outside of fair use, including commercially) which is why we don't host them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I have reinstated that said passage, with some modification. If that passage seems problematic, feel free to page me. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Copied from US copyright law?

I dont see any independent, credible source that there was a study or analysis that confirm or explictly state that the Intellectual Property Act of the Philippines entirely based (or any wording that state it duplicates) the US copyright laws. Kindly have it stricken off this document and on Wikipedia as it us a mere personal analysis of the one who wrote the said text. exec8 (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Their copyright law from 1924 was basically the U.S. law, though the copyright terms were a bit different (30 years instead of 28) and there were some other small differences ("immoral" and "unchaste" works were not given copyright). You can compare the 1909 US Copyright Act with their 1924 law; the similarites are fairly obvious (notice requirement, renewals, deposit requirements, etc.) Or per this: Act No. 3134, entitled, "An Act to Protect Intellectual Property” was passed in 1924, making it the main intellectual property law in effect until after Philippine independence from the US in 1945. Act. No. 3134 was based on the U.S. Copyright Law of 1909. They made some small tweaks of wording after independence (removal of United States references), and joined the Berne Convention in 1951 (which probably changed some things) but really did not replace it until 1972, at which point they have diverged more. Although they have copied U.S. fair use pretty much verbatim from the U.S. 1976 law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kindly share a credible website explicitly having a detailed text analysis and not your mere personal understanding of the Philippine copyright law in its current content to text to the US law. Usage of the term entirely bares no factual basis. You may suggest a different wording for that --exec8 (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I gave a link and a quote to a Philippine government website. The U.S. version of copyright notice, renewals, and deposits was fairly unique, and the Philippine law had them exactly. Same with prohibition of copyright in government works. Not surprising, given it was a U.S. colony. The current law has diverged a fair bit, but there would still be shared case law. In the current context, "entirely" would not be correct, but removing the references completely is also not right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

New discussion on PHL FoP

ResolvedThis discussion has been concluded. The eventual consensus is that there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines, and none of the acts under Section 184 of the Republic Act No. 8293 can be applied. The three near-FoP acts, listed at d., e., and j., are not free enough for Wikimedia Commons. A law change (amendment of the said copyright law) could change this. See also the section #Comment with Query, for the last extension of this discussion.

– JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Quoting a statement by Exec8 at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:TriNoma "There is no local (Philippines) jurispudence or court records that ruled on FOP nor any copyright protection on landscape, architectural works in relation to photography. The intent of the law is protection on the reproduction of architectural plans and physical reproduction of finished works and not landscape photography." I thought it's best to discuss this matter here in light with dozens of recent DR's targeted at Philippine architecture and to some extent sculptures. From Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:EDSA Shrine to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:GMA Network Center and even to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Divine Mercy Shrine (Misamis Oriental)‎ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Paging some of the Filipino Wikipedians for some inputs regarding this matter: @Seav, Ianlopez1115, Sky Harbor, Markoolio97, TagaSanPedroAko, Hariboneagle927, Howhontanozaz, HueMan1, and Lawrence ruiz: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate that this was brought to my attention. In my opinion, getting a legal opinion from the Justice Department concerning freedom of panorama may be a option worth exploring in lieu of a decision from the Supreme Court but I cannot be certain if that option was previously attempted or considered (either at Commons or at the Wikipedias) plus other possible drawbacks. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There was an attempt to get an opinion from the Intellectual Property Office but they decided that the courts should decide on the matter, so... *shrugs* --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Sky Harbor, I'm aware that there was an attempt to get an opinion from IPOPHL but that doesn't mean that the DoJ option shouldn't be used. Who knows, maybe the DoJ opinion would be different from IPOPHL's and not require the use of case law or amendments to current legislation in order for this to be resolved. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification update: Howard the Duck replied at enwiki Tambayan on September 14, 2020 regarding this matter. Their reply was: "This is a case of badly-written law. Is there someone at Commons' legal office that can interpret this once and for all?" JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Seav, Ianlopez1115, Sky Harbor, Markoolio97, TagaSanPedroAko, Hariboneagle927, HueMan1, Lawrence ruiz, and JWilz12345: Everyone, I just received a very welcome reply from the Intellectual Property Office's Bureau of Copyright. According to them, "The inclusion of a freedom of panorama provision is among the amendments being explored in the ongoing review of the present copyright law. No assurances however of its inclusion in the final bill. Rest assured however that this is in our radar." The Wikimedia community should lobby for this amendment. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Notifying also other users for the said update: @P199 and King of Hearts: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Also notifying @Howard the Duck: 08:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Howhontanozaz: I also posted your message at en:Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#FOP Philippines.
 Comment I don't know about the rest of you, but if the Intellectual Property Office sees the need to insert a Freedom of Panorama provision in our existing laws, then sadly, I would conclude that as of now, there is no FoP in our country. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Question to @Howhontanozaz: would this somehow affect the current DR's initiated by a certain Mrcl lxmna? E.g. the Senate Building, Batasang Pambansa, Rizal Shrine Intramuros, "The Martyrdom of Jose Rizal" sculpture in Rizal Park, GMA Network Building, Divine Mercy Shrine Misamis Oriental, and People Power Monument? BTW, a Facebook post of IPOPHL which became the basis of my polls at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EDSAMonumentjf2030 04.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:People Power Monument Looking to Ortigas.jpg seems to solidify the assumptions of longtime Commons administratiors and file patrollers that Philippine sculptures (and most likely Philippine buildings) might be copyright-protected, therefore unfree on Commons (and to some extent on English Wikipedia, unless a single photo will be retained but downscaled to comply with w:WP:NFCC, possibly wrecking the metadata of the said photo, with all other photos of the copyrighted structure deleted). According to Marchjuly who replied at my question on Fastily's talkpage, usages in such lists as w:List of public art in Metro Manila and w:List of tallest buildings in the Philippines might fail NFCC. Lately I'm getting a hard time of undeleting a photo of Banate, Iloilo Municipal Hall on English Wikipedia at w:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and only the photo of the Spanish-era Banate Church was undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Note: Howard the Duck replied at Tambayan enwiki forum last night. His reply: "This changes nothing. The w:Philippine Competition Commission was completely unaware of an amendment in the w:Bayanihan to Recover as One Act that basically stripped it of its powers. Who knows what the IPO can do if the PCC didn't even know that a law was amended to strip them of powers. We still need a ruling Commons' legal or consensus from the users there on what to do with images of the Philippines where FOP is unclear right now, not in the supposed future where all of these are fixed up." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright

As per ruling by the Supreme Court on G.R. No. 195835 dated March 2016, Copyright infringement is thus committed by any person who shall use original literary or artistic works, or derivative works, without the copyright owner's consent in such a manner as to violate the foregoing copy and economic rights. For a claim of copyright infringement to prevail, the evidence on record must demonstrate: (1) ownership of a validly copyrighted material by the complainant; and (2) infringement of the copyright by the respondent. This applies to no FOP tags by random users claiming a building, structure, public art in the Philippines automatically presumed to have a copyright. The ruling state that any petitioner citing a copyright violation must establish a valid evidence like certification from the Intellectual Property of the Philippines that a subject (for example, a building or a sculpture) has an existing copyright on its record and is deposited. As for architectural works, copyright violation happen is when a violating party got the patented architectural plans, drawings reproduced and used as basis for reproduction of its final product. A mere possession of the image the finished product does not mean the person already commit a copyright violation.

Another ruling, on G.R No. 161295, dated June 29, 2005, it states that Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and copyrightability. By originality is meant that the material was not copied, and evidences at least minimal creativity; that it was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least same minimal degree of creativity. Copying is shown by proof of access to copyrighted material and substantial similarity between the two works. The applicant must thus demonstrate the existence and the validity of his copyright because in the absence of copyright protection, even original creation may be freely copied.

To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate. The presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.

This therefore solidifies freedom of any content contributor, whether in Commons or Wikipedia that taking photograph of any subject and upload it on commons does not violate copyright unless there is valid evidence that the subject possesses intellectual property. --exec8 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

At least from 1972, the Philippines has explicitly protected architecture. Most likely they have from 1951 (when they joined the Berne Convention, probably making the Berne text part of Philippine law) or maybe 1955 (when there was a presidential proclamation which said the Berne Convention text of the time was then part of their law). The Berne Convention allows countries to limit the rights of authors when it comes to pictures of buildings or public sculpture or the like -- but those typically take the form of exceptions to the general copyright rules, and the Philippines does not have such a section in their current law. They do have a list of limitations very similar to other laws, but do not include anything on limiting the rights of photos of architecture of sculpture, which is usually in those sections. They have added, pretty much verbatim, the U.S. fair use clauses (as that had been part of Philippine common law previously, courtesy of the U.S. heritage of their copyright law). That probably covers most non-commercial uses -- but something such as selling t-shirts with the photos may be a problem. They have not however copied the bit of U.S. law which explicitly says photos of architecture are outside the scope of the architectural copyright. The U.S. does not have any similar prohibition of photos of sculpture, and indeed photos of sculpture have been ruled derivative works and infringement in U.S. cases.
I'm not sure how the sections you quote argue that aspect -- they are more about what constitutes infringement (which is similar to most laws, and the specifics are basically identical to U.S. law). A photo of a building is substantially similar (it's usually an exact copy of its appearance), and obviously the photographer had access to the original if they photographed it. (The access requirement is in case two authors independently happen to create very similar works -- those would not be infringement of each other.) If the work of architecture has a valid copyright, a photograph would seem to be derivative using those rules, absent something explicitly limiting that in the law. It's entirely possible the lawmakers didn't consider the question, and courts could rule that such a limitation exists, but without some more specific evidence we usually don't assume that. Obviously, knowing what typical de facto practice is could also help, but common usages like posting photos to websites would seem to be fair use, and actually infringing uses would be relatively rare. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Regarding the selling of T-shirts with such or similar photos, there was (and still is) no restrictions on such commercial acts. The only restriction in my experience here are selling "smuggled" T-shirts, but it has been accepted (in practice) to sell T-shirts with such photos (or even with anime/video game characters), considering the lack of court cases. This solidifies the basic principle of our law in which "what is not prohibited is allowed" (from the statement of Hon. Alfredo Garbin Jr. of the w:Ako Bicol party list, found at the point 1:47:50 of this Philippine Star video about the June 8 hearing for the ABS-CBN's franchise). Although it might be against the so-called 5 PCP's of Commons, this is a general principle that can be interpreted in the FOP Philippines case. The lack of FOP does not mean that photography and reuse of photos of architecture and sculptures in our country is prohibited. I might reiterate that no actual lawsuit has ever been filed by the architectural community against Filipino photographers, at least for those photographing structures that were built or designed by the now-deceased people. Back to the selling of T-shirts, personally I never heard or seen or read about sculptors or architectural community filing cases against people selling T-shirts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I also disagree the notion that postings of photos or selfies of copyrighted structures are fair use that's compliant with any of the provisions on our copyright law. For example, in Facebook's terms (https://mbasic.facebook.com/legal/terms, mobile basic URL version), the social media platform states that although users own their content (including photos), they are expected to provide them a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works" of their content (depending on their setting configurations), in exchange for improved services and experiences with third-party app or site providers who provide fun and features for Facebook users. They also added that this licensing aggrement is revoked once the user deletes his/her Facebook account for good. Perhaps among those user-posted photos that are being reused by Facebook are those bearing Philippine architecture and sculptures that are supposedly not OK here because of no FoP. This licensing by Facebook is of commercial nature and not included among the fair use types under the R.A.8293. So I doubt this is considered fair use in our case, and yet Facebook and other social media platforms continue their services here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
With regards to my statement above, this should never be an issue in the first place. Commons is part of a non-profit organization (as such, not benefiting from any of the content and purely reliant on donations), whereas the social media platforms capitalize their users' uploaded content in the name of inproving services and experiences. We should have no problem in hosting photos of Philippine architecture and sculptures. 15:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The case decisions G.R. NO. 161295, June 29, 2005 and G.R. No. 195835, March 14, 2016 have nothing to do with architecture and sculptures. Thw former is about "Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile" a plastic utilitarian article. The latter is about a steel product and steel manfacture. None is about architecture, sculptures, monuments, paintings, and others. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Concise Rejoinder: being Neutral, for I myself did objectively and not subjectively researched on the finer legal points of Copyright Law by reading the Law, reading Jurisprudence, reading Wikipedia Article section on 2 Supreme Court case on the matter of Copyright Law vis-a-vis my long discussion with the lawyers of Director Blancaflor when he was not around; may I just touch on the legal corners of the Philippine law which is 98% the same as USA Federal Rules Law and USA Settled Jurisprudence; I find that even Commons editors and administrator cannot lay a very exact meter on what should be deleted or not, since the brightest lawyers in Philippines thereat Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL could not possible respond to my Filed Letters; It is therefore suggested that : Until the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL Directress issues a ruling or reply, and/or Until the High Tribunal the Supreme Court published a Judgement on the matter after a Ripe Case had been filed, then, all the photos subject of the nomination should, as they should be Kept since Commons will be loosing valued and priceless photos; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

More importantly, any Administrator, Editor and specially the Nominator, I suggest, would value the Mastering of Pain in enduring the expensive transportation expenses in taking photos subject of FOP; I am not requiring any Nominator to actually shoot first before Nominating deletions but it is very very important; for examples a) I took only one photo of San Antonio Town hall on 6 October 2012when I should have taken more than 50, then it was burned by fire June 8 2013 - hence New town hall only remembers it now my photo is a National Treasure that revives the Dead; b) the Category:Calasiao, Pangasinan Puto Producer & Vendor Association and Fruit Stalls and here Category:Poblacion East and Poblacion West, Calasiao, Pangasinan this too are National Treasures that revive the Dead for the BUILD, BUILD, BUILD demolished all these now; c) there are so many Welcome Arch Gates that I photographed but many of them were demolished by the same road widening and road Clearing of the present Administration; d) there are many Bridges that I photographed that were demolished like the Heritage Category:General Alejo Santos Bridge in Baliuag-Bustos, Bulacan now replaced by New Bridge with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan; with all due respect, may I humbly Suggest both as Editor and as Regional Trial Court Judge, based on the express provisions of Philippines Laws and settle jurisprudence and for this matter, I respectfully reproduce herein as part hereof my my reply and inputs my Consolidated Reply, Rejoinder and Noting of Suggestions by -Ianlopez1115 (talk) and Sources and evidence Judgefloro (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses from Judgefloro about FoP matter

Letter from Judgefloro

File:5134Letters of the Philippines 02.jpg

I'm going to post here a photo of Judgefloro's letter concerning the FoP matter. Seems like a suggested draft for a request letter. Paging @Ianlopez1115, Sky Harbor, Seav, Howhontanozaz, P199, and King of Hearts: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

May I ask for Time to add Inputs in this Discussion, Thank You

Reply with Filing of Detailed Discussions on All the Entries of Pending Request for Mass Deletions once I finished My Legal Treatise on Copyright Law and my Being Prepared Letters to the IPO New Director and other Proper Government In charge on the matters very sincerelyJudgefloro (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of the current provisions relevant to works that might rely on FoP

After my analysis of the sections relevant to works that might rely on FoP (most especially those sections brought forth by that certain Mrcl Lxmna), I revised the section of "Freedom of panorama" accordingly. To note some points:

  • Under Section 172.1 of Chapter II. ("Original Works"), the following works that should rely on freedom of panorama are among works protected by copyright: "(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art;" "(h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of applied art;" "(i) Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science;" and "(j) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;...." These might imply that international application of COM:UA (utilitarian articles) for the Philippines is not possible.
  • Section 172.2 says "Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose," seemingly denying the international application of low simplicity of a structural work as ineligible for copyright. The reason why I cancelled my undeletion requests for various mall buildings such as SM Malls and Robinsons Malls buildings.
  • Section 184.1 of Chapter VIII lists various acts as not constituting copyright infringement. Among them are the following which appear to be FoP-like (but are not free enough for Commons):

(d) The reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or artistic works as part of reports of current events by means of photography, cinematography or broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose; (Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49)

(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned;...

Again, I'm not an expert in law. I might page @Clindberg, King of Hearts, and Howhontanozaz: for this. From this point on I won't get involved in deletion requests at various photos of Philippine structures and artworks until a major development to the FOP situation in the Philippines occurs.

The source used here is https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ph/ph198en.pdf (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition)). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

    • As for originality, the law does say: Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works", are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation. So, like pretty much every country, works must be "original" in order to qualify for copyright. The exact definition of "original" and therefore the threshold where something becomes "original" can differ between countries. Given the U.S. heritage of Philippine copyright, I would be surprised if it's much different than the U.S. -- where rulings have required a least a small creative spark to be "original". So if you draw a square, that's not enough -- that's seen everywhere and is common. On the other hand, if a child draws a big scribble, it probably is -- you aren't going to find that scribble anywhere else. It's that latter aspect which is referred to by the clause you cite -- it's not a measure of trying to define "art", but more a measure of if it's just repeating something seen commonly, versus something at least a little bit creative, and distinctive to that author. I'm not sure there are many rulings on that matter when it comes to architecture, in just about any country really, so that is more guesswork.
    • As for utilitarian articles, you are correct -- that is different than the U.S., which chooses not to protect "applied art" through copyright but rather industrial design laws only, unless it is "conceptually separable" (e.g. a painting on a lamp). The Berne Convention gives countries that option. The Philippines does protect such works through copyright, but with a much shorter term (25 years from creation), as well as having industrial design laws (so protections can overlap there).
    • As for FoP, that sounds correct. Philippine law does lack the type of clause that Commons is looking for, so we assume there isn't any, at least for our requirements. "Fair use" would cover most non-commercial situations for that kind of work, so most real-life uses are not infringement, but Commons requires something more stringent than that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

JWilz12345: Jurisprudence-wise, we do have this — Sison Olaño, et al. vs. Lim Eng Co, G.R. No. 195835 — which the Supreme Court promulgated fairly recently on March 14, 2016. The case was about the copyrightability of a "metal hatch door" and touches on Carl Lindberg's first two points. I have no legal background so I cannot really summarize the case but maybe someone from Commons could? -Howhontanozaz (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Kind of interesting. They ruled it was not copyrightable, as it failed the "separable" test -- citing some Philippine decisions, but also U.S. decisions (including ones from 1980 and 2005). The case had been decided different ways earlier in its history. Earlier in the decision, the "applied art" aspects were mentioned, but it looks like such things at least need to be "ornamental". They mentioned that aspect briefly, before citing the "utilitarian" aspects and citing the U.S. cases for support. The ruling says, The only instance when a useful article may be the subject of copyright protection is when it incorporates a design element that is physically or conceptually separable from the underlying product. This means that the utilitarian article can function without the design element. That is straight out of U.S. copyright law. I'm not sure they directly address the "other works of applied art" part of Philippine law. But, it's quite possible that most hatches don't really qualify for that either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

FOP matter update

Mentioning users who might been involved in the freedom of panorama in the Philippines matter — @Seav, Ianlopez1115, Sky Harbor, Markoolio97, TagaSanPedroAko, Hariboneagle927, HueMan1, Lawrence ruiz, Howhontanozaz, and Howard the Duck: @Emperork, P199, Clindberg, Jeff G., and King of Hearts: , and also I would like to mention that troll @Mrcl lxmna: .

The IPOPHL said that freedom of panorama provision "is one of the proposed amendments to our IP code currently being discussed at the present", according to our fellow Pinoy Wikipedian @Higad Rail Fan: who attended the IPOPHL webinar on copyrights last October 15. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be highly welcome, thanks for keeping track of its progress. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok Jwilz. I will stop my proposed deletion reqs for the meantime while the ipophil discusses the freedom of panorama. But mind you that the artists may have the right to sue people using their works commrcially without their prior oermission most esp the creators of murals and painting type works. Thats what my professor who has background in lae said before. If your exploitation of copyrighted works do not fall the section 184 acts or "Limitations on copyright", then you infringe their exclusive copyright. Photographs of sculptures for instance, he said, are classed derived works. In fact, there is an increasing clamor from the artists community in the philippines for greater copyright respect among filipinos, after the following incident: https://rouse.com/insights/news/2020/talent-shows-and-copyright-infringement-in-the-philippines Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are relevant sources mentioning the copyright situation, infringements, and clamor for greater copyright emphasis in the phils.

1. https://interaksyon.philstar.com/rumor-cop/2020/07/28/173887/local-artist-hulyen-seeks-help-to-report-facebook-page-that-used-her-art-for-red-tagging/ —— "An article of multimedia arts school CIIT Philippines cited that “art plagiarism is a form of cheating and is an illegal act,” according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines." Here the reuse of filipino artworks for illegal purposes CAN be infringement. Freely downloadable photos of filipino artworks can be avenues for such illegal exploits.

2. https://www.scoutmag.ph/culture/art-design/barely-illegal-street-art-copyright-argo-20180330 —— this is the case of street art and graffiti. They CAN be copyrighted in the philippines as they are not listed in the unprotected works, and collectives and societies like Pilipinas Street Plan drive the powerful force for the creativity of these street art and graffiti in the philippines, and its probable that they wont grant free commercial exploits without royalty payments.

3. https://advanced-television.com/2018/12/31/philippines-copyright-infringement-legislation-proposed/ —— this one theres a proposed bill entitled Senate Bill 2109 aka Philippine Online Infringement Act —— in response to what officials tout the philippines as one of the "safest countries for internet pirates" —— and therefore a very urgent need "to protect the works of Filipino artists — “may it be actors, singers, painters and application developers”."

What do you think now, Jwilz? Maybe someone will file a copystrike to the admin of this free media site to take some of those photos depicting copyrighted filipino artworks down, like the YouTube situation. For now i will heed to the call of @Jeff G.: in stopping deletion requests, but for a while. If the situation deteriorates like ipophil not granting FOP, then those photos should be wiped out. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Paging @Clindberg: about the new inputs by the mass deletionist. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
But for me personally, I find it absurd that one day the heirs of Mañosa, Abueva, or even still-living Filipino artists et.al. would file a copystrike to force Commons expunged photos of Philippine buildings, sculptures, etc., given the fact that the country is included in the annual Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments, and before there was w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manila and other photo contests that promote Philippine arts and culture. But I am completely aware of the COM:PCP in which such assumptions are not complying with the Wikimedia Commons policies, most especially this deletion request I read a couple times, since the start of enhanced community quarantine in our region - Commons:Deletion requests/File:WTNaga HMMM A11.JPG that resulted to deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Directly copying works is of course infringement. You would have to show fair use to avoid that. Parody is a form of that, but I seriously doubt the situation in your first reference would qualify (copying a non-famous graphic, and completely reversing the sentiment). If you find copying of that nature on Commons, please nominate it for deletion. The third point is about mass copyright infringement, i.e. sites which upload copies of copyrighted movies etc. That stuff is obviously way, way beyond the pale, and it sounds like the Philippines are looking for ways to stop it on Philippine websites.
Graffiti, your point 2, is a difficult subject. Obviously, if it's more than just a few words, it would qualify for copyright. Common-law countries, at the very least, do have a tradition of not letting people profit from a crime -- I think that is the basis of our policy. If graffiti was painted illegally, you might be able to argue that. If painted legally, no chance. If it's widely-tolerated practice, though technically illegal, the copyright could well stand. It would probably come down to what a judge felt was right vs wrong. For example, if a graffiti was put on a building without permission, maybe that building's owner could use photos of the building with impunity, but someone else using a photo primarily because of the art, maybe not. That could change country-by-country, too. Parts of the U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act (which prevents destruction of certain artworks without the artist's permission) were ruled ineligible because an artwork was installed illegally -- since in that case, it was unwanted by the property owner, so the artist had voided those rights by putting it in without permission. If a building owner wanted to take down illegal graffiti, not much an artist can do about it I would guess. Using it in ways where the illegality was mostly immaterial, could get more interesting, especially if it's a generally tolerated practice (which is what common law is supposed to follow). For better or worse though, our policy has been to allow them.
Derivative works in the form of photos of buildings, or public sculpture, are an entirely different matter. At that point, you are trying to balance the rights of a photographer and another copyright owner, and countries can draw that line in different ways. It is not a straight "copy" of a work, and fair use would probably cover a much wider range of usages. It would only be very narrow situations where those could be a problem. Commons still respects those, but they are among the "edgier" types of deletions. There are very few actual cases of infringement of photos of buildings, worldwide -- I can only think of one, really, in Germany. This is relation to an immense number of building photos which have been on postcards, etc. over the decades. A couple more cases indicated that infringement was possible, though ruled it was not in their particular case. If a photo is of a larger scene, it probably would not be infringement. It would have to be a photo of that building, and little else. And of course in countries which allow building FoP, there would be no infringement even in those cases (which would include the U.S.). Photos of sculpture have been ruled derivative in the U.S., but again they were photos primarily of particular statues, not capturing a wider scene, and those cases are also rare. Most countries have at least non-commercial FoP for such things, so that it would only be the most commercial of uses which could be an issue -- hosting them on Commons would likely not be infringement itself, but instead is more of a policy matter. Determining if it qualifies as a "wider scene", or if something qualifies as de minimis, can lead to different opinions, and acrimony of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I've read COM:FOP many times before, beginning around early 2017, and from that time on my knowledge on the existence of subsisting copyright on what I call "static artistic structures" like buildings and sculptures have widened. Encountering numerous foreign cases, most notably the European and UAE ones (with the noisiest being those in Belgium, France, and Sweden), the FOP issue is far complex than that I have imagined. Complicating is the lack of FOP provision in our country, but in practice no sculptor or his heir has made the courage to file lawsuit against those printing images of sculptures on T-shirts or publishing them on online vlogs here. But perhaps a major relief might come, if the IPOPHL's review on freedom of panorama would bear fruitful results, at least for Commons. But like what @Howhontanozaz: hinted, we should not be too complacent, and I hope one day there will be a meeting and conference (albeit online) soon between IPOPHL, the representatives of Wikimedia Commons and Filipino Wikipedians, and some involved sectors from the artists community here whose works might fall under FoP. I know about the uncertainty of South African FoP, with the proposed amendment to the copyright law being sent back by the president to the parliament for further reviews, after various groups cited lack of consultations or insufficient public hearings (meta:Wikimedia South Africa/Copyright Amendement Bill). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

I respectfully submit to Commons Editors and Administrators this Evidence which Proves beyond doubt that this and most of the Mass Deletions Requests are a) not only palpable Violations of Criminal Provisions of the 2012 Cyber and Stalking Laws b) scheme, habit and plan as exceptions to hearsay rule of the 1989 Rules on Evidence to Mass Delete Valuable Photos Uploaded by Us in Commons; and c) that the Mass Nominator has done grave and irreparable injury not only to the Kapangpangan People who are deeply Religions vis-a-vis Violation or Religious Freedom and Criminal violation of the RPC on Offending Religious Feelings by Claiming without any basis that the 18th Century of Apung Merced in Candaba is clothed with Copyright: I am hereby quoting part of my Legal Treatise on the Matter: "*  Keep because the De minimis de minimis non curat lex court refuses to consider trifling matters dates back to the 15th century. Copyright Public domain the alleged infringer's use of the copyrighted work was so insignificant as to be de minimis. "Courts have also recognized an exception to copyright infringement when the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is deemed “de minimis,” or too minor and trivial to merit court intervention" the de minimis exception involves copyright infringement that is “so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences. There is nothing in IPO rules or law that would say Uploading in Wikimedia Commons is infringement of Copyright; ... at present, they are SILENT still on the FOP Commons Uploading and 2 Directors declined to reply to my Letters as I was verbally told that Commons Uploading has nothing to do about Copyright Infringement: De minimis so to speak - IPO Office does not deal with triffles for First First and First, the Nominator, Editor or Uploader in Commons must have a Legal Standing or Locus Standi to file a Copyright Case which involved Huge Sums of Docket Fees and Attorney's Fees; In Short - can a Commons Editor go to Court and allege in a Complaint proper that this photo violates Copyright Law; for sure, until now, Trifles never reach the courts; and until the Day of Kingdom Come as Senator Imee Marcos said and I borrow her Wisdom, Phil Jurisprudence will never take judicial notice on trifles about Copyright Commons Uploading; thus Category:De minimis-related deletion requests/kept - Category:De minimis Country-specific laws does not have a Philippines section on De Minimis thus, I still need to begin and finish my intended to input on New FOP Discussion, Legal Treatise on Copyright law vis-a-vis Commons FOP and Fair Use; this is a gray area for Commons xxx

Comment with Query

If the IPO or Bureau Director and or DOJ Secretary would rule in my or our Favor (saying that all the Deleted Photos should be Undeleted and Categorically would Rule and not Decline, that - Uploading of Photos covered by FOP in Commons or anywhere is not Infringement of Copyright Laws or Rules and are Trifles or De Minimis and would never reach the Courts) would all the Mass Deletions and or Deleted Photos be Undeleted ? I respectfully suggest that you can bring this matter to the New Discussions on FOP, the Commons Admins or Village Pumps which ever is the turf appropriate

  • I already talked with the IPO lawyers and they told me that they agree with my Cited Sycip Salazar secondary authorities that all your Mass Deletions are covered by Trifles or De Minimis, meaning Copyright Law does not prohibit Uploading in Commons on FOP; your position has no leg to stand while my OBJECTIONS to your Mass Deletions are supported not only by a) USA Jurisprudence b) very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar, c) verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and d) tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter; an editor here cannot just say this or that is Copyright law; I cited Statutory Construction and Legal Maxim rules, while you just copy paste the Law; nobody can say this is the meaning of the Copyright law without laying the predicate; even if there is no square ruling from the Supreme Court on FOP uploading, still, the secondary authorities and Learned lawyer's writings I quoted suffice to say that all your Mass Deletions have no leg to stand: I await the IPO and its Bureau on a Specific Ruling backing the verbal replies they gave to me and or DOJ Secretary's Opinion which is over and above the IPO's would be rulings; In Time, all our deleted photos would be undeleted, since they are just in the files of Commons;
  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • How does an 18th Century Statue of Pampanga De La Merced which is a National Treasure be clothed with Copyright? How, How and How?" sincerely respectfully submitted; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

New  Comment: Judgefloro uttered long sermons at most of the pending Philippine FOP case pages (most of them I cannot comprehend), like at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kartilya ng Katipunan “The Life and Heroism of Gat Andres Bonifacio” Monument and Mural (Mehan Garden, Ermita, Manila) (since all of pending Philippine FOP case pages popped up at my watchlist). If I can interpret his very confusing statements, mostly copy-pasted from various areas of Commons, he now claims all deletion requests as "cybercrime" and that Commons editors have no bases and only the Supreme Court (not Intellectual Property mediation forums) can have the finality in deciding Philippine FOP matters. He also claims this FOP discussion forum is still open, although I can see this discussion forum as "softly closed with no consensus" (in my observation) since the coming of news about IPOPHL's consideration to add FOP in our copyright law. Only update is that FOP "is one of the proposed amendments to our IP code currently being discussed at the present" (from the October 15, 2020 webinar of IPOPHL, participated by Higad Rail Fan. No major updates and/or developments yet, however. Paging @Clindberg, Elcobbola, Liuxinyu970226, A1Cafel, 廣九直通車, and EugeneZelenko: et. al. people involved in various FOP forums. Pardon again for disturbing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I saw his comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in the Philippines, to respond if his defense on religious images and sculptures can also apply to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of the EDSA Shrine, he admitted that "my expertise is only in Criminal Law Review, and what I contribute here in Commons are my pieces in Criminal Law vis-a-vis Copyright Law; even my citations of Canon Law, Separation of Church and State and International law vis-a-vis the Catholic Rules on Creation of Parishes (with all the accessories in the Church like statues and images, perforce, are owned by the Titular not the Personal Bishop of the Diocese or Archdiocese and Copyright Law or FOP has no place thereat)..." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I also noticed his reason to "keep" the likes of files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Binondo, Manila Chinatown Welcome Arch — "Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests." Perhaps you're right @Elcobbola: , Judgefloro's inputs are incoherent and lacking relevence and essence in FOP deletion requests. I can no longer comment whether Mrcl lxmna is disruptive or not, since the truth hurts, Republic Act No. 8293 indeed has no freedom of panorama provision at "Limitations on Copyright" section (Sec. 184). The FOP that means it is allowed to conduct commercial photography on, and create photographic copies or publish photos of copyrighted Philippine buildings, sculptures, etc., if such images are to be utilized commercially (like in postcards, calendars, commercial T-shirt prints, and the like) with no authorization from architects, sculptors, engravers, their firms, and/or their heirs. And IMO, the fact that IPOPHL is now studying the FOP means there is really a need to amend our copyright law so that it can keep up with the changing times, including the prevalence of new media here (YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, online blogs, and of course Wikipedia and its sister Wikimedia Commons). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
What concerns Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of the EDSA Shrine - photos are of clearly of interior modern building where particular work of art is main subjects, so must be deleted. If copyrights law of the Philippines would be changed to extend freedom of panorama, files could be undeleted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what response is desired from me. Indeed, I find Judgefloro's comments bizarre and incoherent, and that no response is the response they warrant. I, perhaps similarly, find JWilz12345's comments about other users (as opposed to the (de)merits of their comments), as imported by Judgefloro, to be unhelpful and inappropriate and thus also undeserving of response.
Chapter VIII, Section 184 of Republic Act No. 8293, however, says:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: [...] (j) Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or, that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title." (italics in original)
I've looked and thought no further, but this appears as close to FoP as Philippian (statutory) law gets, and is limited to works that are non-audiovisual (or therefrom derived.) Future discussion should perhaps relate to interpretation of this section, as comments untethered to underlying sources are generally not helpful. Эlcobbola talk 19:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg: can this clause (letter j) mentioned by elcobbola apply to Philippine FOP? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. It sounds like if you own a physical copy of an already-published work, you're allowed to publicly display it, but not make further copies. Say a toy you bought, which is protected by copyright. I think photographs would fall under the exceptions to that rule (it's either film or "by means of any other device"), and uploading to Commons is far more than public display anyways. The U.S. never had any explicit FoP provision either, so the Philippines never inherited one in their law. They copied the U.S. fair use language from the 1976 Copyright Act, but the U.S. did not protect architecture at all until 1990, and it was only then that they specified that photographs of buildings were outside the scope of the architectural copyright. I'm not sure that the Philippines has many explicit references to architecture in their law other than to say it's protected -- section 186 says that the architectural right includes the ability to prevent another building using the same design, but not the rehabilitation of the original building, but that's about it. Their law is silent on photographs of buildings, just as U.S. law is silent on photographs of sculpture, meaning the other wording in the law suggests that photographs count as derivative works. And indeed, photographs of sculptures in the U.S. have been ruled infringements. Obviously if nobody ever sues over such photos, it's not a practical problem, but for Commons it's hard to ignore that all the precedents we know about in other countries suggest that such photos would be considered derivative works. Unless of course you get to photographs of wider scenes which happen to include works, or de minimis situations, where instead all the precedents I'm aware of suggest that such things are not derivative. Granted, there are not lots of precedents of either situation, but there are at least some. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
If that is the continued stand on no FOP in the Philippines, then go. Feel free to delete all the images! I won't involve in any more FOP in the Philippines-related discussions except some categorization, if ever new deletion requests be made. The COM:PCP, despite an official policy here, runs counter to our basic principle in the law (once echoed by AkoBikol partylist rep. Hon. Garbin) which is that "what is not prohibited is allowed." This was my stand in the beginning, the lack of court cases mean it is simply allowed. I have to admit one thing that Higad Rail Fan told me about the Oct. 15, 2020 IPOPHL webinar on copyright, and that I still haven't said here or in any other forum. That "IPOPHIL is a private org and is yet to have a partnership with Commons." @Clindberg, King of Hearts, and P199: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC) slashed my irrelevant input. 09:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Clindberg: photos of architecture are counted as derivative works. That's what the IPOPHL moderator at the October 15, 2020 webinar (joined by Higad Rail Fan) said. If some veteran Wikipedian here have FB account (I hope), I would have sent a screenshot of that comment that is stored in Higad Rail Fan's Google Drive as a proof. Or can I send the screenshot via email at the address provided by OTRS page (though this may not be the right venue for sending such screenshot). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Good to know. I think that is the long-held opinion here, just by reading the law and extrapolating from other similar laws, and is what COM:FOP Philippines says. So, not much reason to change anything, barring a law change (that certainly would be nice) or at least some sort of an official statement to the contrary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Another update from Higad Rail Fan, @Clindberg: , IPOPHL (through the Bureau of Copyrights) replied from Higad's latest email that they are open for a meeting or dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation for matters concerned to us Pinoy Wikipedians, including freedom of panorama and also the government works. Right now this is being planned by some of our fellow Pinoy Wikipedians, though the conclusion of this "very looong discussion from September" seems to hold the "status quo" (no Commons-applicable FOP in the Philippines at the moment), until major amendment to our copyright law (Republic Act No. 8293) occurs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Retroactivity of Philippine RA 8293 for FOP-reliant works

Today in our country is Bonifacio Day, and IPOPHL posted this on its official FB account. On that post is about the Bonifacio Monument of Caloocan City, with credits to its sculptor Guillermo Tolentino (who died in 1976). It then applies the current rule of copyright on this monument (using the current Republic Act 8293) despite it was erected during the American colonial area, when the Act 3134 was still in effect. This is the extract of the whole caption of the FB post:

Today is Bonifacio Day!
To commemorate the birth of Andres Bonifacio, the Supremo of Katipunan, our Pinoy IP of the month is National Artist of the Philippines for Sculpture, Guillermo Tolentino.
Guillermo Tolentino is a Filipino sculptor, born in Malolos, Bulacan. He designed the Bonifacio Monument in Caloocan, standing as an enduring symbol of the Filipinos' cry for freedom. His other remarkable works are the UP Oblation, bronze figures of President Quezon at Quezon Memorial, the marble statue of Ramon Magsaysay in GSIS Building, and the seal of the Republic of the Philippines.
Know more about the Bonifacio Monument here: https://officialgazette.gov.ph/bonifacio-150/
*Sculptures, like other literary and artworks, are protected by #Copyright from the moment of its creation.
#IntellectualProperty #BonifacioDay2020 #PinoyIP #NationalArtist #BonifacioMonument

— in: this Nov. 30, 2020 post of IPOPHL Facebook page

This implies R.A. 8293 is retroactive, for this case all Philippine "literary and artistic works" like sculptures (pardon me for mentioning y'all again @Clindberg and King of Hearts: ). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

When a new copyright law comes out, the new law will define the contours of copyright for any acts going forward. If copyright terms are extended, usually they only apply to works still under copyright by the rules of the old law -- but occasionally, old public domain works are brought back into copyright going forward. It's those latter ones we usually term "retroactive". For retroactive laws, there are typically extensive rules for existing exploitations, to not suddenly turn them into crimes. The rules on how existing works are treated are usually at the bottom of the law, in a "transitional" section. You would need to look at all previous laws to see how they treated existing works, to track the status over the years. For example, the 1972 decree, article 63 at the bottom, was explicitly non-retroactive -- it only applied to works still protected by the previous law; existing PD works remained PD. The only complication is the (very informal) accession to the Berne Convention -- even though no law was passed, was that deemed to retroactively restore copyright? That's kind of a messy thing to do, and Berne does not require retroactivity for a country's own works (just how they treat works from other countries). No actual law was passed at the time, which makes things messy -- if copyright was largely ignored, they could say it was technically retroactive in the 1950s but nobody really cared about infringement until much later, by which point older works are considered restored, or something like that. Or, the IPOPHL could just be documenting what the current law is, without really trying to determine the status of particular works under older laws. If there was a court ruling to interpret all of this, that would help, but otherwise the law itself is the only thing we have to go by -- and if the wording of the law is non-retroactive, I'd think we'd assume that status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg: There is now a reply from IPOPHL about my query (the second one actually) on that post. To quote below (also paging @Patrickroque01: who made the first query). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Andres Bonifacio Sculpture

In response to a post that IPOPHL made last November 30 on the above subject, we received two particularly interesting comments. One states that the sculpture is government property and, therefore, has no copyright, and the other inquires whether or not the sculpture is already part of the public domain.

To clarify, the IPOPHL post simply stated that sculptures are works of art and are, therefore, subject to copyright. It was a statement of a general principle and did not, in any way, make a claim as regards the copyright status of Tolentino’s sculpture.

On the second point, and based on publicly available articles and references, Tolentino’s sculpture was inaugurated in 1933. It is thus created during the regime of Act 3134 which requires “the deposit of copies and registration of claim to copyright.” (Sec. 11) Assuming these requirements were satisfied by Tolentino, the same law also provides that copyright shall “endure for thirty years from the date it is registered,” (Sec.18) subject to renewal for another 30 years. (ibid.)

Act 3134 was repealed by Presidential Decree No. 49 in 1972. Copyright protection was expressly made applicable to works in which copyright protection obtained prior to said decree was still subsisting at the time of its effectivity. Note that by this time, more than 30 years have lapsed since the Bonifacio sculpture was inaugurated in 1933. Thus, unless the copyright claim was renewed by Tolentino in 1963, the work would have lapsed into the public domain. Only then would the copyright protection provided under PD No. 49 (i.e. lifetime plus 50 years after death) apply to the Bonifacio sculpture.

Finally, we take this opportunity to proffer a few clarifications on current rules on copyright as expressed in the present Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA 8293, as amended): Section 240.3 of said Code provides that, “(t)he provisions of this Act shall apply to works in which copyright protection obtained prior to the effectivity of this Act is subsisting x x x x.” This means that RA 8293 was, indeed, retroactive relative only to works the copyright of which were subsisting at the time of its effectivity.

The fact that the government owns a work does not necessarily mean that it is not covered by copyright law. Section 176.3 of the IP Code states that, “the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it x x x x.” In other words, while Government works do not enjoy copyright protection, it may enjoy copyright protection over works transferred to it.

Section 178.4 of the IP Code provides that copyright over commissioned works remains with the author/creator but the work itself shall be owned by the person or entity who commissioned the work.

Please Like and Follow the IPOPHL-BCRR Page for more information on Copyright and Related Rights or if you have questions, email us at copyright@ipophil.gov.ph

Thank you very much!

— Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines
OK, great, thanks for that. That confirms that the 1972 law was not retroactive, in that it did not bring anything back into copyright (and neither did the accession to Berne) so works which were PD under the notice and renewal rules remained that way. They do get the longer terms as of that date, of course -- that is most typical of copyright laws. (Occasionally, existing works still only have their older terms -- such as the 1976 Copyright Act of the U.S., where existing, published works continued to be based on date of publication and not the life of the author, as opposed to works published 1978 or later.) The original statement was indeed one of a general principle, and not referring to the discussed work in particular. That also seems to confirm that renewal requirements continued after joining the Berne Convention -- though it's not completely sure if the notice requirements continued. That is similar to the U.S. accession to Berne -- they removed notice requirements immediately, but renewals were still required, until another modification was passed three years later. It seems as Philippine law did not really change until 1972 for renewals. Unsure if we can extrapolate to notice requirements as well, but it's possible. Of course, I'm not sure how many of the renewal volumes from the Philippines are online to search through. That was a real problem for U.S. renewals for a few years on Commons, until Google Books and other entities scanned them and made them available. 04:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Philippine buildings 1951–1972

Through this reply from IPOPHL, @Clindberg: can all images/photos of Philippine buildings (anything "architectural") "created" (a.k.a. completed) between 1951 and Nov 14, 1972 (the date indicated at the Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property) now be considered OK for Wikimedia Commons. Numerous images of 1951–72 era buildings are still pending for deletion, mainly by the nominator Mrcl lxmna, and among these are images showing buildings like:

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That is the question. By the letter of the law, notice was still required, but that would be the most obvious thing to change if the Berne Convention was in force. Formalities are no longer allowed under that convention; copyright is supposed to be automatic. I guess you could argue that the convention does not force a minimum term on a country's own works, just how long it protects works from other convention countries, so the 30-year term (and thus renewals) for existing works may still be OK. It's a pretty big gray area, and for all its importance, it doesn't appear there was ever a court case in all that time which raised that question, so we are left guessing. Has that question been asked of the IPOPHL? I could understand their reluctance to answer that, as well ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jwilz12345 and Clindberg: I have some questions. Why is the rationale for keeping pre-1951 architecture based on the notice requirements? Shouldn't it be based on the fact that Act 3134 did not consider architecture as a subject eligible for copyright protection, similar to the US before 1990? Wouldn't it be wise to just create a template like Template:PD-US-architecture? -Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Pre-1951, correct -- we do not think architecture was protected at all. The notice requirements would be for sculpture and other works before 1951. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg and Howhontanozaz: done creating {{PD-Philippines-architecture}}, with the layout structure based on {{PD-US-architecture}}. Though the text description is very long, and I suggest not using this template until someone fixes the text and makes it more concise but not eliminating the important points of the template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

House Bill 8062

From Howhontanozaz's post on my talk page: "Hi! Just want to give you a heads up on this new bill filed last Nov. 23 by Reps. Garin & de Venecia seeking to revise the Intellectual Property Code & is currently pending before the Committee on Trade & Industry. (pdf file here). No FOP provision though but still a substantial proposal, 136 pages long! Thinking of maybe persuading Wiki Philippines to send a rep. when deliberations start, though I believe that won't happen anytime soon with the committee swamped by COVID-19 recovery bills."

@Clindberg: , upon a quick look under the limitations, unfortunately, it remained almost essentially the same as that of the current copyright law. No FOP. But the proposed law will create a National Council on Intellectual Property Rights (NCIPR), which among its proposed mandates will be the establishment of a sub-committee that will tackle intellectual property rights in the digital environment. The subcommittee will then have the power to order restriction or disable/block access to websites and online platforms or may even order the removal of allegedly infringing materials. I don't know if this will impact both Commons and Wikipedia, as both have access and are being extensively browsed/used here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to save uploaded photos versus i am a smart one

  • Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat; I found time to write a little Clarification why I wrote long, incoherent and winding discussions on FOP; this is not my Ateneo and Judge style of legal writing (short, direct and straight to the point - beginning with yes or no, and not letting the reader guess); it was intentional on my part, because I am faced (my talk page and of my photos in User:Ramon FVelasquez) with floodwater of Mass Deletion Requests by the i am a smart one; he or she with co-conspirators carefully planned and spent tons of man hours to erase my photos, inter alia; basically i am a smart one in disguise edits with wrong grammar and no spelling check but using expertise via JavaScript and other high tech tools; his or her alibi of parent and child sock or alternate account is hard to prove; but now, i am a smart one is virtually stopped by Kept Kept Kept; I am not at this moment complacent for i am a smart one will come back and I say there are many ways to skin a cat; I am sure that: a) Commons editors allowed i am a smart one to go on with MDRs; some of i am a smart one MDRs were even granted; i am a smart one thought that i am a smart one was able to succeed via disguise; this is called Dama, that is, Commons veteran editors and hard working administrators are very able and ready to protect Commons photos from this historical (only this time in Commons) MDRs; I am beginning to see Light, for most of my Long, incoherent copy paste Discussions in i am a smart one entries were successfully Granted lately; I cannot respond, discuss or submit better arguments and replies against this multi-talented i am a smart one than my tons of CODED riddle long replies with multiple headings; I deeply note that I am understood by editors and administrators who already Noticed that i am a smart one is not a single account but a grand Conspiracy to erase my and User:Ramon FVelasques my photos from Commons; very sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama for religious works and properties

Judgefloro (talk · contribs) has asked for clarification on FOP as it applies to church properties. See User talk:Judgefloro#About Church Properties

  • The relevant part of the 2015 law for exemptions from normal copyright restrictions is CHAPTER VIII. LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT - SEC. 184. Limitations on Copyright. There is nothing here that would allow a photograph of a copyright protected work in a public place to be used for commercial purposes without permission.
  • However, if the church is confident that the author of a protected work has transferred copyright to the church (not just ownership of the work) their authorized representative could give permission for commercial reproduction with a CC-SA license.
  • Without proof of permission, we should delete pictures of protected works. They can always be undeleted.

Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: personally I would want to believe in that as we here are always allowed to take photos of church buildings and church artworks like frescoes. The problem is that COM:PCP might not accept our claims. I also want to know about Judgefloro's claim that by the Canon law, all rights even copyrights of architects and sculptors (sculptors of icons and religious sculptures) are transferred to the church, and it is now the church who gives rights to anyone to take photos and use their works for any purpose. He first made that claim at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:EDSA Shrine. I read his statement on his talk page a while ago, and it appears he seem to make that claim too on Christian (e.g. Protestant and Iglesia ni Cristo) churches and their underlying artworks JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: he gave links to the Canon Law at the DR to EDSA Shrine images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @JWilz12345: I doubt that the canon laws of the various religions or sects can override civil law. The architect or artist may not be asked to transfer copyright, and may get upset if they find someone has sold a close copy of their work or has used it to advertise something. The church probably would have no problem with casual snapshots, although they may not allow photos of the interior. They too may get upset with use of images of the church or artwork for commercial purposes. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aymatth2: I saw one link he provided: https://www.lra.gov.ph/mediafiles/pdf%20forms/Sample%20Forms/deedofdonation1.pdf . He claims "by operation of Canon Law vis-a-vis Copyright Law, all the rights of the Sculptors are tranferred to the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila as Titular, from the moment of its creation and after payment of the art fees or after signing the Deed of Donation by the Sculptors tranferring in fee simple all their moral and remaining rights in the works to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila; no permission therefore is needed to copy or to photograph any and all things whether facade, microscopic, macro or De Minimis from the Bishop or heirs of the Sculptor, for the arts belong to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila and or the Faithful, WE, the Catholics, who are co-owners thereof with the Auxiliary bishop of Manila." Is this related to transfer of copyright, or just mere transfer of ownership that is not related to copyright at all. Also paging (again? 🥴) @Clindberg: about this issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    • That is a declaration by that church that they consider that by virtue of their canon laws they acquire all the rights, which would include copyright and moral rights, when they pay for the work. I could form my own church and make a similar declaration, but it would have no legal force. In many countries moral rights cannot be transferred. Copyright can be transferred through an explicit legal document signed by the artist. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aymatth2: so is this not relevant for Commons with regards to FOP in the Philippines? Assuming from your reply, it is Judgefloro's burden to prove the PD status of all churches (whether Catholic or Christian) via COM:OTRS (he should send proofs like documents via OTRS email system and not by taking pictures of these documents and uploading them here to only add redundant and potentially-out of scope files). By the way, our churches have no restrictions with regards to manner of photography and publications of images of their owned works, and only thing matters is privacy (which is a non-copyright restriction). Also, the inages may not be used for purposes of destroying the images/integrity of the Church and the Christian churches (also non-copyright related). For major/extensive renovations like reconstruction, however, such may be treated as original works like the case of Agoo Basilica (see my inputs at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Agoo Basilica, though it was closed because it was initiated by a troll-nominator). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes. A church, mosque or temple, or artwork it contains, may be clearly in the public domain based on the age of the creator. If not, we would need an OTRS statement from an authorized person that the religious body owns the copyright in the building or artwork and allows copies to be made for any purpose. A blanket statement covering all the buildings and artwork should be acceptable. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines/Archive_1&oldid=789825828"