Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Robinsons Galleria

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Robinsons Galleria 1

This building was completed in 1990 per w:Robinsons Galleria, and designed by W.V. Coscolluela & Associates. As there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines, permission from the architectural firm (preferrably via COM:OTRS) is a must to have these freely-licensed images of the copyrighted architecture hosted here.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pompeia (wife of Caesar) "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion": Inhibition of Nominator in all FOP cases Philippines our of Delicadeza and Impartiality: Fervent appeal to editors and administrators to Only Put On Hold the FOP Philippines Nominations for Deletions by herein Nominator pending Reply to Emails or Letters to DOJ Secretary or IPO Directors, past and present on Commons FOP uploading vis-à-vis Probable Cause of 2012 Cyber Stalking Crimes on habit or schemes - FOP Philippine Mass Deletions carefully planned since September 2, 2020 by Smart One - Parent and Child with Check User on Hold

Prefatory: a) when I was practicing law, I usually phone call the LRA Administrator's Legal Office to elevate on Verbal En Consulta - that is oral query to question a Bulacan Register of Deeds' refusal to register my documents; the written Consulta with Reply often takes months; hence, the Register of Deeds, upon my entry in the Primary Entry Book of my Verbal query notes, automatically decides of my Registration; b) in1 985 at a Maritime Law Office, I phone call the Legal Departments of Several Government agencies and I write them on their phone replies to protect our Boss, Law Office from legal attacks by our clients;

My legal challenge, With All Due Respect to my almost Daily Talk Page Visitor Nominator: why don't you just email your specific FOP Deletions to the DOJ Secretary or IPO Directors, and await the Replies, before your ask for Deletions? While trickles of deletions may not be bad for Commons, they are bad precedents for snakes waiting to bite; meaning therefore, the Smart One and Check-user may use the push button deletion as precedents to Again Again and Again Continue Mass Deletions to the irreparable damage and injury to Commons Wikimedia Foundation ownership of all these photos;

Legal support of my stance - Nominator must be above suspicion "A judge, like Caesar's wife, must not only be clean but must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive… every judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty ..."

Pompeia (wife of Caesar) Inhibition (law) out of Delicadeza Judges' inhibition based on Delicadeza All the foregoing notwithstanding, this should be a good occasion as any to draw attention of herein nominator of many FOP deletion to study the appropriate guidelines to try and decide a case fairly and judiciously comes to the fore by way of challenge from herein editor: I always submitted many legal suggestions on FOP nominations, that herein nominator should conduct a careful self-examination; as an editor, a man, subject to the frailties of other men, nominator, should, therefore, exercise great care and caution before pushing the button to edit my talk page and ponder on the the all-important confidence in the impartiality of all editors herein to forestall miscarriage of justice by erasing tons of landmark photos from Commons and preventing future researchers and the youth from learning from Commons photos : irreparable damage and injury to Commons Wikimedia Foundation ownership of all these photos I irrevocable donated for public domain; and without even emailing the IPO Director or DOJ Sec. Ad Cautelam ... this way, nominator avoids being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved vis-à-vis the sockpoppet check user of Parent and Child accounts of the Smart One;
I respectfully copy paste herein as integral part hereof A humble but fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to look into the following history: please Keep all the photos nominated by this User on Legal grounds a) probable cause for violation of Philippine Cyberstalking and Cybercrime of 2012 b) a reasonable ground to believe that the Mass Deletions by this Nominator will Erase so many files from the Ownership of Commons resulting to irreparable damage and injury not only to Wikimedia Commons foundation but to the Cultural heritage of the Philippines and Tourism, landmarks and interesting points that are created here for the Next Gen and Millennials

Keep I register a very strong Legal objection to the Deletion and PREMISES CONSIDERED, * I further object to the deletion on the ground that our Copyright law expressly contains the Extinctive prescription of 4 years unlike 3 years in American Jurisprudence; so from 2016 uploading, any and all photos of Commons can no longer be deleted much less be brought to the Special Court even by the creator artist or assigns of the artist sculptor, Dura lex sed lex; the IPO, DOJ and the Special Court will forthwith throw the case by Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash due to Prescription; even Commons lawyers will agree with our Copyright Law proviso on Extinctive prescription read in connection with the Implementing 2019 Circular on Special Courts' creation and jurisdiction over Copyright cases including FOP here; with this I register a very strong Legal objection to the Deletion Judgefloro (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgefloro: how many times I will tell you that copyright may subsist in government-commissioned works? For your reference, see COM:Philippines#Government works and COM:Philippines#Commissioned works. There's no need for another query to IPOPHL et cetera: IPOPHL has quoted relevant passages from R.A. 8293 that a government-owned work doesn't necessarily mean it isn't copyrighted. Refer to Section 176.3 of the copyright law. Also, see Sec. 178.4 for rules on commissioned works: unless "there is a written stipulation on the contrary", the due treatment is that the person who created the work owns the commissioned work, while the owner only owns physical ownership. And, Robinsons Galleria isn't a government-commissioned work, it is a shopping mall that is privately-owned. Take note, much of your statement claiming that only Commons admins will take action if the copyright holder sends notice do not comply with COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle: Commons cares for the copyright holders most especially those who designed or created the works that are found in the image (including sculptures and buildings), even if many people do not. Only when FOP is introduced here is when we can now host images of your problematic buildings and sculptures. Per Commons policy on respecting copyrights deletion first is the right approach. Commons already has experienced tremedous loss for deletions of thousands of w:Burj Khalifa photos, see Category:Burj Khalifa-related deletion requests. See also Category:Louvre Pyramid-related deletion requests/deleted. Category:French FOP cases/deleted alone has more than 2,000 case pages, perhaps including thousands of deleted images. But that is the essence of respecting the copyrights of the creators of these architectural and sculptural works of art, as we should not assume that they will agree to have images of their works licensed freely without their knowledge. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder: I disagree with the above-submitted discussions and opinions on the following legal grounds: a) the cited deletions in other countries have no application to Philippine FOP; your cited Webinar among others clearly states that everyone may email the IPO director for specific queries; b) I have repeatedly quoted and copy pasted my 2 letters filed with the IPO Director and Directress; I am armed with 2 written evidence; c) in my 1st Query with a top lawyer of the IPO 5 March 2014, 13:28:43, I, as Judge and lawyer formally discussed the FOP Commons Uploading and the Reply, though verbal, but official, was that there is no Copyright Infringement in FOP Commons Uploading, until, until and until a S.C. Case is decided on the matter; what is not prohibited is allowed, so to speak; d) on the other side of the fence, you have cited the Webinar among others, but unlike me, you never presented as Counter-argument against my legal submissions any formal request and letter on your stance; d) it is unfair for us editors to wait and wait as your promised or stated and posted here my handwriting letters to Editors, that IanLopez would file the draft being finalized; but suddenly we editors are now shocked why no such letter was filed or easily emailed; e) in argumentation and debate, your word, their word and my word against others' words; Commons has policies and if you can take a cursory perusual of my Archived talk pages - Archive 1 12 November 2007 to 18 12 05:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC) and User talk:Ramon FVelasquez/Archive 1 to User talk:Ramon FVelasquez/Archive 6 01:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC) : I usually submit no objection to FOP Deletions; but the Nominators are assorted, editors and admininstrators; f) starting with the Mass Deletions on September 3, 2020 of the Smart One, Parent and Child Check-User on Hold, both flooded my talkpages with deletions requests; g) while your continuous and almost daily visits on my talk pages redound to billboards ads etc, I cannot just copy paste affirmative replies to your requests ... I have to voice my legal opinion; and this is how Commons works; h) in SUM, I suggest that, even if you opine that you do not need to email the IPO Director, it would not be so bad to allow other editors to Nominate FOP Deletions and put them on my Talk Page; there are so many Filipino editors and they are capable also of putting DRs on my talk pages on FOP;

PREMISES CONSIDERED, I respectfully submit to Commons editors, my above-Legal rejoinder to your opinion and messages, as I humbly submit to the sound discretion of the Commons Community of Editors on whether to delete or not to delete the FOP photos that I repeatedly asked to be Kept Judgefloro (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Robinsons Galleria 2

This second set of files unambiguously show the billboard advertisements, as 2D graphic works of art. Also fails COM:FOP Philippines, and permission from the graphic artists is a must.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Functus officio - the photos were educational advertisements inviting learners to be interested in Tourism of the Philippine and how spam bots are commercials ads in Philippine eye-sores that distract seniors but enhance young ones craving for beautiful skin; - as tarpaulin advertisement billboards, they are very informative and educational; but now they are merely remains of the past and were removed after the occasions; even if I consistently objected to deletions of photos vis-à-vis the 4 year Philippines and Commons - US Jurisprudence on Extinctive prescription; however, the focus is the Mall or building, and may qualify for Philippine De Minis; I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons to the deletion of these already used photos based on the foregoing considerationsJudgefloro (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]