User talk:JWilz12345/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

I mistakenly assumed that Paraguay did not have FoP.

However, COM:CRT/Paraguay states that Paraguay has FoP.

Without knowing it, I made Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ícono Paraguay.jpg...

I'm sorry...

Ox1997cow (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: it's OK. Just close the nomination by yourself, like what I did at Commons:Deletion requests/File:05458jfQuirino Avenue Metro Manila Skyway Makati Barangays Paco Manilafvf 03.jpg (uncontroversial closure by yourself). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I did. By the way, did you see Template talk:FoP-Italy? Ox1997cow (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: by this time there should now be a consensus on the "exceptions to no FOP in Italy". These exceptions include works by deceased artists and very high bar of threshold of originality, which should be added at the bottom of COM:CRT/Italy#Freedom of panorama (see also the bottom of COM:CRT/Philippines#Freedom of panorama). However, I expect such major changes to be done by Italian users (not users from other lands like me), and an open questio remains: should the 70 years p.m.a. be removed from the FOP section? Just forward my question there as I will leave the matter to the Italian Wikipedians who are more familiar on such peculiarities. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrator?

Hi, JWilz12345. You are active in deletion requests and we need more administrators. Do you want to became an administrator? Taivo (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: thanks for your invitation but, I decline. I have several real world, off-Wiki activities / errands that may hinder on-Wiki works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I made {{FoP-Paraguay}}

Paraguay

According to article 36 of the Paraguayan Law on Copyright and Related Rights, this reproduction is permitted without authorization by the author or payment of remuneration in relation to works already disclosed:
  • Reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in streets, squares or other public places, or on the outer walls of buildings, where the artistic medium used is different from that used for the making of the original, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work, if known, and the place in which it is located are mentioned.
See COM:CRT/Paraguay#Freedom of panorama for more information.
English ∙ +/−

How about this?

Ox1997cow (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it, {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} doesn't seem to suit Category:Buildings in South Korea and Category:Buildings in Italy...

In South Korean copyright law, the post-authority protection period has been increased from 50 years to 70 years in 2013, so works that are in the public domain in South Korea are works of authors who died before 1963.

And, as a recent discussion suggests, buildings and sculptures in Italy by the author who died are allowed.

So, I removed {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} from Category:Buildings in South Korea and Category:Buildings in Italy.

Instead, I placed a custom attention text.

However, in 2034, {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} will be reattached to Category:Buildings in South Korea.

Ox1997cow (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: for SoKor case, that template is still valid. Just adjust the parameters from 50 to 70. The fact that the amended law changed the duration doesn't mean the use of the template hecame obsolete.
For Italian case, I think the categories should follow the French model, where {{20th-century architecture in France}} - which contains a warning box - is used. Italy does have that template: see {{20th-century architecture in Italy}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: However, in my opinion, the custom attention text is more appropriate due to the difference in whether it is in the public domain following the extension of the copyright period in 2013. (died 1962: public domain, died 1963: not public domain (public domain from 2034)) Ox1997cow (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: perhaps you may want to create {{20th-century architecture in South Korea}} and have {{21st-century architecture in South Korea}} as a redirect to it, similar to French and Italian cases. Having separate custom templates makes maintenance harder. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What means SemiPD icon?

FoP templates(for example, {{FoP-UK}}) include File:SemiPD-icon.svg, and NoFoP templates(for example, {{NoFoP-SK}}) include File:Red copyright.svg.

I know that File:Red copyright.svg means a work is protected by copyright.

However, I don't know what File:SemiPD-icon.svg means.

What means SemiPD icon?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: you might have posted your question on COM:Village pump or COM:Village pump/Copyright instead, as I don't know the precise meaning of this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I posted my question on COM:VPC Ox1997cow (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: File:Volgograd and the Motherland statue.JPG

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Volgograd and the Motherland statue.JPG: I apologize for only now responding—I just noticed your message tonight. Thank you for explaining the situation. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Your welcome @DocWatson42: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Found it!

I finally have some free time thanks to summer vacations and I decided that I would find the source from the seagull picture you rightly deleted, and I did! Here is the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seagull_in_capitol_hill.jpg I do believe that I can remix the file and share it but maybe I had to link the work or the license or something, idk you tell me man, Best Regards! --Scuraball (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Scuraball: thanks for the info. You can request the undeletion of the deleted file via COM:UNDEL. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Scuraball: I already posted the restoration request at COM:UNDEL. Be sure to reply to any questions that admins or veteran users may ask. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Can I attach the following template to the category buildings or sculptures by living authors in Italy?

Per COM:FOP Italy, Buildings and sculptures by deceased authors in Italy are allowed.

Therefore, I will attach the following template to the category buildings or sculptures by living authors in Italy.

{{NoUploads|0}} (For example: Category:Allianz Tower(Arata Isozaki and Andrea Maffei are still living.), Category:Needle, Thread and Knot(Claes Oldenburg is still living.))

The reason I set the copyright protection period variable to 0 in {{NoUploads}} is that Italian buildings and sculptures have freedom of panorama as soon as the author dies.

Can I attach the following template to the category buildings or sculptures by living authors in Italy?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I think it is better to ask this at COM:VPC. I don't want to make suggestions if other users may find it inappropriate later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Ok. I asked this at COM:VPC. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How about to make {{NoFoP-Denmark}}?

After I saw File:Petite sirène de Copenhague (conforme à la loi danoise).JPG and read Category:Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen), I think this.

It's good to make {{NoFoP-Denmark}}.

I refer to {{NoFoP-Japan}} and {{NoFoP-US}} and make it for categories.

What about the text?

Ox1997cow (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: The suggested text is (with the links):

Article 24(2) of the Danish copyright law, Consolidated Act on Copyright (Consolidated Act No. 1144 of October 23, 2014), permits uses of pictorial representations (like images) of works of art found in public places, but this no longer applies if the work is the main subject of the pictorial representation and this representation is used for commercial purposes. Therefore, images of such works are not considered as "free works" on Wikimedia Commons, which requires images to be used even for commercial purposes. Please do not upload images showing such works, unless these works are already in public domain, or 70 years have passed since the death of the artist or last-surviving artist. See also Commons:CRT/Denmark#Freedom of panorama for more information.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make {{NoFoP-Denmark}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I made this. If there is anything to correct, please correct it.
NoFoP-Denmark Layout

{{NoFoP-Denmark}}

Also, I made {{NoFoP-Ethiopia}}. How about this?
NoFoP-Ethiopia Layout

Ethiopia Warning sign

Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright.

This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in Ethiopia. There is no freedom of panorama exception in the Ethiopian copyright law, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than personal purposes.

If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation.

Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer for more information.
English ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−
Ox1997cow (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: both are fine. For Ethiopia's case, there is no FOP whatsoever among the exceptions (Articles 9–19) of their copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Anything to edit? Ox1997cow (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
None. Both are OK. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators

Hello. Have you ever thought of becoming a sysop? I am so pleased with your comments in DRs actually, you would help community a lot. rubin16 (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rubin16: thanks for invite, but like what I replied to Taivo (see the thread above), there are real world, off-wiki activities/errands to do. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not pushing you but to be considered active you need 5 admin actions in 6 months. And we are all volunteers here and manage our time and workload: when you are busy, other administrators are working, too. So, I still want to invite you, but it is your decision, of course. rubin16 (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: as of now my decision is decline. Though I am not closing the doors, I am not ready yet as well as real life errands. But thanks for the invitation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of LRR

Hello, JWilz12345. You have new messages on another wiki at Commons:License review/Requests#JWilz12345.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

--A1Cafel (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: thanks for nomination. But I speedy decline: I'm much more comfortable of being an ordinary user than a user with admin/sysop/LRR/checkuser/ etc. status (with higher-order user groups). See my replies to both Taivo and Rubin16 above. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Mass nominations

JWilz12345, thank you again for your advice back in June. I procrastinated, but installed Visual File Change tool just this morning. Without it, this would have used up most of my morning. No, that's not true -- actually no it wouldn't have: I'd have contemplated going ahead "manually" but decided that my life was too short to use it up on such chores. VFC is a stark contrast: it's as convenient as I could hope. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome @Hoary:  :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

How are Mongolian DM standards permissible for including copyrighted architecture and sculptures in landscape photography?

For photos of architecture or sculptures in countries where there is no freedom of panorama, stand-alone photos are not allowed, but landscape photos with them are often allowed under DM.

For example (Lotte World Tower: See also COM:FOP SK and COM:DM SK)

(However, I think it's necessary to rename these files to make applying DM clearer.)

However, Mongolian DM standards are for non-commercial use only.

If so, what images are allowed when applying Mongolian DM standards in the above case?

The closest order to the person taking the photo and the copyrighted subject is A, B, C.

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: de minimis rules vary from country to country, and depends on either the relevant provisions of the copyright laws or existing jurisprudence (such as a French court case concerning postcard depictions of Terreaux Plaza of Lyon). If there is no specific country standard of de minimis, then the common principle of de minimis applies. Just my opinion only: you cannot apply the South Korean de minimis on Mongolian cases, or French de minimis (based on accessory concept) on U.S. cases (to which U.S. de minimis, based on triviality concept, applies).
For Mongolian case, we apply the common concept as per COM:De minimis#An example: If the <WORK> forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the <WORK>, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the <WORK> was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the <WORK> was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
However, it is written in COM:DM Mongolia that Mongolian DM is limited to non-commercial use only. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: if that is the case then sadly. But in practice it is largely unenforced within Mongolia and outside (though folks here may state COM:PRP). Though in my opinion, it is completely OK to depict Mongolian cityscapes similar to File:롯데월드타워 2020.10.jpg. Also, you may take into account the threshold of originality. We can apply the common standard of COM:TOO to buildings of Mongolia. If the houses or buildings are just plain, with no artistic properties, then the images are completely fine for me. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, Mongolian cityscapes similar to File:Lotte World Tower near Cheongdam Bridge.jpg may be OK, as long as the buildings are distant. For streetscapes, similar to File:제2롯데월드타워 01.jpg, these are OK if the surrounding buildings are not artistic or creative enough. Note that these are just my opinions, other editors and longtime users here may be more forgiving or restrictive on DM perspectives. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I take an example from the ongoing deletion discussion.
Ox1997cow (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I crossed out my inputs for those two files. I will leave the matter to the closing admin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about freedom of panorama, this is detrimental to the original author...

Freedom of panorama is a copyright-free provision that allows we to freely use photos of buildings or sculptures located in public places.

However, this is an obvious benefit as it allows free use from the point of view of the person taking the photo, but it is a loss for architects and sculptors because they cannot make money from copyright.

Therefore, there will be a backlash from architects and sculptors when introducing freedom of panorama into law in a country where there is no freedom of panorama.

In fact, when freedom of panorama was introduced into the law, were there cases where freedom of panorama was introduced only for non-commercial use due to the opposition of architects or sculptors, or when the introduction of freedom of panorama was rejected?

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I admit I'm thinking about the same, at least to some extent. Freedom of panorama or panoramafreiheit (German term where this English term came from) might seem to be harmful to the interests of the authors of recent works in public spaces that we see in our eyes. Though it is taken seriously here on Commons: Commons:Licensing, which is the chief pillar that supports the freeness of Wikimedia Commons, clearly states that all files must be freely usable by anyone in the world, even for commercial reuses, without copyright-related restrictions.
Freedom of panorama is, in fact, a highly complicated gray area in the copyright in relation to user rights of peoples across the globe. It cannot be simply explained in just a few words. This complicacy is a result of different levels of FOP around the world:
  • Freedom of panorama is most liberal in China (mainland), Malaysia, Uganda, Portugal, Mexico, Peru, Hong Kong, UK, and most of the former British territories (now independent countries), except the likes of South Africa, Zambia, Tanzania, and Ghana.
  • Adequate FOP is guaranteed in countries from Spain to Taiwan. Artistic-rich countries of Austria, the Netherlands, and Switzerland also have adequate FOP.
  • Noncommercial FOP for public art is evident in Denmark, Japan, Norway, and Finland, though with liberal FOP for buildings only.
  • But there is a totality of noncommercial FOP in countries like Iceland, France, Slovenia, the three Baltic countries, Romania, Bulgaria, Belarus, most of the Soviet Union-era states with "-stan" suffixes, Morocco, and your country.
  • FOP is restricted only in many countries, like UAE (broadcasting media only), Greece (mass media and not new media), South Africa/Namibia (radio, TV, and telecommunications media), Democratic Republic of Congo (in textbooks, journals, newspapers, TV media, and movies only), and Honduras/Nicaragua/Costa Rica (personal use only).
  • The rest like ours and Indonesia don't have FOP at all. As of now the copyright amendment bills are still pending in our Congress since February 2021, but fortunately there is no news of opposition to FOP here – "as of now".
The controversy arising from recent discourses about FOP, in which Wikimedia Foundation becomes involved with in several instances, can be seen in the mid-2015 events in the European Union. A summary of the events can be read at w:Freedom of panorama#European Union.
BTW, what made you thought of this? I there a significant opposition to WikiCommons-compatible FOP in your country? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
My guess is that when South Korean copyright law decided to include freedom of panorama provisions, non-commercial restrictions were placed on it by backlash from architects and sculptors. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: maybe. But this very controversial issue under freedom of panorama — the distinction between commercial and noncommercial — is becoming more and more unclear and uncertain, thanks to social media.
Social media has created a "gray zone" with regards to freedom of panorama, as this Politico.eu article states. Maybe our postings (publications) may be noncommercial, but FB and other platforms apply their own types of licensing which some European Union lawmakers consider as "semicommercial". You may want to read the article of Politico.eu regarding this (but ignore the issue on Eiffel Tower at night as Yann and other French Wikipedians have agreed that there is no copyright on ordinary lighting). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to attach the photos of the works of no FoP countries into photos that apply DM.

After I read User:JWilz12345/FoP. I have a good idea.

I think it is a good idea to attach the photos of the works of no FoP countries into photos that apply DM.

However, I'd like to make it clear that these are allowed under DM.

Examples of notices: The images below are images of buildings, sculptures, monuments, etc., in countries where there is no freedom of panorama, which is allowed under DM.

Ox1997cow (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: in my opinion, it is better to leave the "gallery portfolio" under my userspace as it is, and not to include DM examples. Adding section on DM, in my opinion, erodes the purpose of the gallery portfolio which is to show images of works from countries with Commons-compatible FOP. Plus, de minimis varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and unlike FOP provisions which are clearly based on copyright laws and existing jurisprudences and legal literatures or analyses, DM is subjective and not objective. Besides, DM concept is already available in a section at Commons:De minimis that illustrates examples (near the bottom of the page). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In what cases can {{PD-old-architecture}} be used in South Korea?

{{PD-old-architecture}} recently made available for a standalone photo of public domain building located in a country where there is no freedom of panorama.

First of all, in South Korea, the protection period after the death of the author was extended from 50 years to 70 years in 2013, so works whose authors died before 1963 are in the public domain.

In what cases can {{PD-old-architecture}} be used in South Korea?

1. Buildings whose architect died before 1963 and completed before 1990 (ex. Sungnyemun)

2. Buildings whose architects died after 1963 or are still alive and completed before 1990 (ex. 63 Building)

1990 is mentioned because in the United States building copyrights were enacted in 1990, so buildings completed before 1990 are in the public domain in the United States.

Naturally, stand-alone photos of South Korean buildings completed after 1990 are not allowed.

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: first of all, is your country's copyright law retroactive? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: It is not retroactive. Thus, in 2013, when the copyright protection period was extended from 50 to 70 years after the death of the author, works whose copyright had expired (works whose author died before 1963) remained in the public domain. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Ox1997cow wait. 63 Building is not allowed here because there is no suitable FOP in your country. As per the chief pillar at COM:Licensing, files have to be free both in the country of origin and the United States. For the FOP-reliant works of architecture, this can be interpreted as "architectural works must be free both in the country of origin and the United States." The addition of US tag at the bottom is just for U.S. compliance. But the architectural work must be free in SoKor also. Even if the building is free in the US (either because of PD status for pre-1990 works or FOP status for post-1990 works), if not free in SoKor then it is not acceptable here.
You can analyze the infobox image at w:The Little Mermaid (statue) (a sculpture from Denmark that has no commercial FOP for public works). It is not in fair use, even if English Wikipedia only accepts fair use tags for unfree sculptures ('cause they follow US law). This is because it is in public domain in the United States (it was erected before 1926). So artworks that are not free in the country of origin but free by US law are wholly accepted there. The Little Mermaid is still off-limits here, however, because it is still copyrighted in the country of its origin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) (Cross out my input as it seems the image on enwiki has been subjected to fair use licensing too). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: If so, do I need to attach {{PD-South Korea}} together with {{PD-old-architecture}} when uploading Sungnyemun image here? Ox1997cow (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: no need. Just use {{Licensed-FOP}}. The PD-old-architecture tag will be placed at the first field, and the photo (uploader' license) at the second field. The PD-old-architecture is universal for most (if not all) countries with no suitable FOP. Plus you can attach the year of the death of the architect if available (similar to {{PD-old-auto}}, where this is largely based from). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Thanks. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I create {{NoFoP-Warning}}?

After attaching NoFoP templates to cityscape photos in countries where there is no freedom of panorama (such as South Korea, France, Philippines, etc...), an idea came to mind.

That's what makes {{NoFoP-Warning}}.

It is similar to {{Licensed-FoP}} or {{Licensed-PD}}, except that the structure is different as shown below.

Photo

(License Template (ex. {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}})

Object/s

(NoFoP Template (ex. {{NoFoP-South Korea}})

I referenced the file page of File:Lotte World Tower near Cheongdam Bridge.jpg I uploaded.

Can I create it?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use NoFoP templates for Licensing section. Other warning templates (ex. {{Personality rights}}, {{Trademarked}}, {{Nazi symbol}}, etc.) are also heavily used in Licensing section. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: please discuss your proposal on Village pump. But IMO it is too impractical and may cause potential misuse. The users may claim that such template can be used to defend files from deletion and that it warns reusers. But retention of files that violate authors' rights is against both COM:PCP and COM:CARES.
The "NoFoP-xxxxx" templates are enough for me. Another thing, there is no artwork license in the first place for works of countries with no suitable FOP (no freedom of panorama licensing or authors' licensing), which means there are only two ways to deal with such files: judge if the files meet de minimis or the artwork is too ordinary to be considered original, or file a deletion request. Besides there is also {{De minimis}} tag if you feel that "NoFoP-xxxxx" tags are not enough. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Files in Category:Port-Grimaud

Many thanks for your check, it was a surprise to me to learn of the limitation. I agree with the deletion of my files. Fernando.tassone (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fernando.tassone: hello. Please comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Port-Grimaud. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama/table

Hi JWilz, Apologies for posting and removing,
I'm not sure if you're aware but over at https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ both old table and new table pass Graphical Objects and User Interface Components WCAG AA (and the old table seems to score better at WCAG AAA (Graphical Objects... isn't available under WCAG AAA)

So just wanted to ask does the table really need changing if there's presumably no difference between the 2 and that both pass WCAG AA?,

Reading this WCAG AA is classed as "acceptable" and AAA is "gold standard level of accessibility" so acceptable should be enough (providing people can actually navigate the site without issue/hinderance, I can't seem to find anything else inregards to the Graphical Ob.... so I don't know if the tables meet or fail WCAG AAA,

I originally came here to complain over the new colour scheme as green and orange look terrible although the old table wasn't much better although it was easier on the eye,

Apologies for this being so long (and for the double post) but felt this should be brought to your attention, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I modified the table as per Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/07#Colors on COM:Freedom of panorama/table, in an attempt to make the color labels of the table more accessible to people with color blindness. However, if the current color scheme is not OK, I may revert back to the original form. But I may ping @Mattinbgn: (one of the Wikipedians who have this condition as per his original request at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 17#Maps and tables - colours) to air his side and if he agrees to revert back the table or does he have better suggestions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi JWilz, I know that's why I didn't revert you :) (Would be very VERY silly to revert something for which you got consensus for :)), Thanks for pinging the other editor - Would be interesting to know how the old/new tables stand, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi JWilz, Hope all is well, Apologies for disturbing you,
Unfortunately Mattinbgn hasn't been on since the 1st August so unless you have an issue with the previous table then should the previous table be reinstated ?, I can always post a note on the tables talkpage noting this discussion and that if the table does hinder accessibility that proof should be added and new colours be added etc,
Many thanks. Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 18:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2020: SLR. I suggest you raise this concern at COM:VP, with a link to this revision of my talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted as uptil now it's never been a problem, I've left a note on the tables talkpage, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Italian & Philipine FOP

As I am not familiar with legal background of the recent Italian & Philipine FoP changes and I will not handle cases related to them. You may need to ask admins who actively participated in taking appropriate decisions of the changes for help. Otherwise, the requests may be closed as stale soon (this generally happens after 30 days). Ankry (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: for the Italian cases, I'll mention those involved in the discussions at UNDEL.
Re: Philippine FOP changes. It is actually expansion of treating certain works (most especially buildings) as public domain. Prior to the July 2021 discussion at VP/C, it was accepted that buildings completed from August 1951 to December 1972 were still copyrighted by virtue of Philippine accession to the Berne Convention, which was "supported" (I don't know if my term is right) by this presidential proclamation stating that "may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof." But it is evident that the old Act 3134 of 1924 (which didn't grant copyright protection for finished architecture) was still the prevailing law, and this was reflected in a 1964 court ruling that disregarded the "no-formality rule" of the Berne (notwithstanding the presidential proclamation of 1955). (resource, found on page 169 of the document).
By applying the circumstances and impact of this court ruling, this means the 1924 copyright law was still in effect in the country up to December 14, 1972, a day before the Marcos-era Presidential Decree No. 49 (applied Berne provisions and gave protection to future buildings) took effect. Hence it is without doubt all finished Philippine buildings from 1951 to December 14, 1972 are still in public domain thanks to the American colonial-era law and this 1964 court ruling that still applied the old law despite the Berne accession. See also an insightful input of Howhontanozaz here.
It is just similar to the public domain status of U.S. buildings before 1990 (thus {{PD-US-architecture}}). The only difference is that the Philippines was the first to protect buildings (December 1972), unlike U.S. which only took that move in 1990. This, however, does not provide de facto FOP in the Philippines; this is only an expansion of treatment of public domain status to Philippine buildings up to those completed prior to December 15, 1972. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think after looking at the two maps?

Currency copyright status map
Freedom of panorama status map

After looking at the two maps above, what do you think?

I find it interesting that both maps show South Korea and North Korea in opposite colors.

Currency: South Korea - Light Green, North Korea - Red

Freedom of panorama: South Korea - Red, North Korea - Light Green

What do you think about the status of currency copyright and freedom of panorama in your country, the Philippines?

Philippines: Currency - Yellow, Freedom of panorama - Red

Ox1997cow (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: pardon me, no comment as I am not involved in most currency related discussions. Though I cannot ignore the stark irony that NoKor which has one of the most stiffling regimes in the world has a very liberal and progressive FOP on par with those in Europe (like Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, and Serbia), while SoKor which has one of the most free cultures in the world (the proliferation of KPop and KDrama cultures) has a very restricted FOP similar to Iceland's, Belarus', Kazakhstan's, or Slovenia's.
I just hope that FOP gets introduced in our country soon, as more files are being nominated. I can't do much on them as the impacted buildings are post-1972 and the artworks/monuments are creations of artists who are either still living or deceased for less than 50 years, and no FOP status still prevails as of this writing. Just a minor update: according to Howhontanozaz (who is my contact off wiki too on Messenger), the w:Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) is still consulting with relevant stakeholders who might either benefit or be impacted by all amendments. The two bills that are currently pending in the House of Representatives and being consolidated are House Bill No. 8062 and House Bill No. 8620, the latter has the sought-after FOP provision (modelled after the Australian FOP). But even if all these amendments are passed, an equivalent bill from the Senate is still needed (and finally, President's approval). You may want to look at w:Congress of the Philippines#Lawmaking to know the typical "journey" of a proposed bill in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Ok. Good luck to your country, the Philippines. And I hope that freedom of panorama will expand to commercial use in South Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Btw @Ox1997cow: , despite you're from SoKor, if you wish you may join the Facebook group of the Tambayan community (Tambayan community = en:WP:TAMBAYAN). The FB group also welcomes Wikipedians who are not from the Philippines but may have involved in various Philippines-related matters. It is still your decision to join, however, and it is not compulsory. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between de minimis and not de minimis in a photograph of a building or sculpture in a country where there is no freedom of panorama?

Single photography of buildings or sculptures located in countries where there is no freedom of panorama is not allowed, but pictures of landscapes with them are allowed in accordance with de minimis.

However, even with a similar composition, some photos were decided to be kept in the deletion discussion, while others were decided to be deleted in the deletion discussion.

Even if the file name contains the name of buildings or sculptures protected by copyright, it may be decided to be kept it, while in other cases it may be decided to be deleted it even if the file name does not contain such a name.

What's the difference?

Ox1997cow (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: depends on case-to-case situations. COM:De minimis#An example provides an overview of a de minimis test. Let's reword the three cases outlined there, but now using FOP-reliant works:
If the building/sculpture is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the photographic reproduction may be considered de minimis (perhaps the said artwork takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background).
If the building/sculpture forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the said artwork, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defense to say that the artwork was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the said artwork was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area.
If the existence of the building/sculpture/fresco/mural makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the artist (architect/sculptor/muralist), then a de minimis defense to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Once I understood that. Please bring specific examples of deletion discussions.
For example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lotte world tower.jpg (As a result of the discussion, first version was kept because it is DM, but intermediate version was deleted because it is not DM.)
Ox1997cow (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow re. that file, it can be argued as passing de minimis test. Try to crop away up to the middle of the building. What is the result? The image is still usable and educational even if a substantial portion (not necessarily the whole) Lotte World Tower is cropped away. I'm not saying you crop the image and request an admin to revision delete it, I'm trying to illustrate to you the principle of the de minimis test as outlined in the example section of COM:De minimis.
However, File:Power Plant Mall, Makati City.jpg (DR) becomes a different story. There may be several reasons to claim de minimis such as the building obscured by trees or the image may show the road scenery. But upon using the de minimis test, you will realize that it fails after all. Crop away a major part of the building, and the image becomes a redundant image of a portion of the road or a tree. The building serves an integral purpose on the image; without it, the image is of no use. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

When you request deletion of files in categories of buildings or sculptures located in countries where there is no freedom of panorama, are files corresponding to de minimis excluded from the deletion request?

I saw your requests for deletion of files in the category of buildings and sculptures located in South Korea where there is no freedom of panorama.

In these deletion requests, it was confirmed that these deletion requests were made except for some of the files that were in categories at the time the deletion requests were made.

Excluded files:

Are these files excluded because de minimis applies to these files?

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: those are not deletion of categories per se. Those are batch or mass deletion requests, made easier through VisualFileChange apparatus. The files that I excluded are likely due to my judgment that these may pass COM:DM. Deletion of categories can either be made via COM:Categories for discussion or tagging of speedy deletion notice in a few cases. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Thanks. I have found a very useful tool. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Philam Life Theater

Hi, I restored images of architecture and 3D art attached to the building ([1]). I didn't restored the 2D art works, which may have been created much later than the building. Or do you know what's the creation date of these? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: only the building itself. I don't know the history of the artworks (sculptures, murals etc.). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Bonifacio Monument.jpg

Hi, I am a bit confused as which file should be kept. Additionaly, we should separate these, but I forgor how to do it without loosing the upload history. There are also more deleted files about monuments from the same artist: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Guillermo Tolentino, Commons:Deletion requests/Guillermo Tolentino statues. Should we undelete these too? And what about Commons:Deletion requests/Bonifacio Shrine in Manila? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this, only the images that show w:Bonifacio Monument of Caloocan that dates to the regime of mandatory copyright formalities. Not all other statues by the same artist Guillermo Tolentino, and not even the shrine in Manila that was designed by Eduardo Castrillo (who died in 2016) and unveiled in 1998, during the regime of "copyright starts from the moment of creation." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
And @Yann: , for File:Andres Bonifacio Monument.jpg, the version that will be only restored is the version by User:14macgirl (not the recent one which is a clear copyvio). For File:Bonifacio Monument.jpg, I request for COM:SPLIT to split the 2008 file (and name it File:Bonifacio Monument at night.jpg), while the current file must be redeleted as it is an unfree Eduardo Castrillo work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Plus re: File:Andres Bonifacio Monument .jpg I think that is fine because 14macgirl's other file (File:Rizal Monument.JPG) is decent enough to be treated as own work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Ping @King of Hearts: for some assistance in restoring only the decent versions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I make a template related South Korean non-building structures?

In Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Yi Sun-sin Bridge, it was concluded that bridges in South Korea are not copyrighted.

So, I suggest a template related South Korean non-building structures.

This template can be used in photos featured South Korean non-building structures(such as bridges, tunnels, etc.).

Can I make a template related South Korean non-building structures?

And what should be the template name?

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: there is no need for a template for objects that you mentioned. It is just redundant and highly impractical to add such templates in every category of uncopyrightable objects around the world. Even if your template is exclusive for SoKor, it just encourages creations of such impractical templates on categories of all uncopyrightable works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
So, how about adding an exception to COM:FOP South Korea section? (Non-building structures such as bridges and tunnels are not protected by copyright.) Ox1997cow (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: that's fine. See COM:FOP Ukraine for instance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
And are chimneys protected by copyright in South Korea? Are chimneys non-building structures? Ox1997cow (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Not sure about that @Ox1997cow: . But IMO chimneys that have no architectural or artistic designs are fine, but if they incorporate some 3D works like engravings or sculptures, then they might be a no-no to Commons. Application of COM:TOO perhaps. But not sure, just my opinion. It seems my opinion is applicable to European chimneys. Perhaps I'll ping @Liuxinyu970226, Yann, King of Hearts, and Explicit: regarding SoKor chimneys. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I suggested a template related South Korean non-building structures because unlike in France, bridges are not copyrighted in South Korea. Copyright laws differ from country to country, and protection is also different. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Ox1997cow, bridges are part of a class of objects which should be presumed to be architecture unless found otherwise, so when a country deviates from the norm we should have a template to warn people so they don't accidentally nominate them for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow and King of Hearts: or perhaps a note in two languages (using {{En}} etc.), one in English which is the default language here and the other the principal language of the country (for this case, Korean)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I can make both English and Korean versions of the template. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: if you want to make that template that should be compatible with categories of uncopyrightable works from othee countries. Not just SoKor. A single template for all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I have a good idea. Name of the template is PD-non-building-structure. This template can be used in photos featured non-building structures in countries where non-building structures are not copyrighted such as SK. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
By the way, which country does not have copyright on non-building structures? (In South Korea, non-building structures do not have copyright, and in France, non-building structures have copyright.) Ox1997cow (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that a template would be useful. In the past, I have avoided uploading images of bridges in South Korea because I assumed FOP restrictions applied to them. It wasn't until I saw Ox1997cow's comment about it at a DR a few months ago that I became aware that they don't.

While it may difficult to gather this information for each and every country, the consolidated rules from {{FOP region index}} may be of some help. ✗plicit 02:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Great. What should be the name of the template? Ox1997cow (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: By the way, why non-building structures are copyrighted in France? Ox1997cow (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: see [2], on the website of Compagnie Eiffage du Viaduc de Millau, who is the management of w:Millau Viaduct, for one particular case. While property owners' house rules are COM:Non-copyright restrictions, the restrictions imposed by CEVM are in effect copyright restrictions as they state that they are also the exclusive beneficiary of all rights of Mr. Norman Foster, who designed the bridge. To quote with some emphases:
  • "Compagnie Eiffage du Viaduc de Millau (CEVM) is the exclusive beneficiary of all property rights including all usage rights for the very image of the Millau Viaduct. These rights are managed by the CEVM on behalf of the architect, Lord Norman Foster. Not a single image (photograph, video footage, drawing or other representation) of the Millau Viaduct is "royalty free" (except landscape images where the Viaduct appears in the background and is thus not the main focus of the image). The use of images of the Viaduct is thus regulated, and any use for commercial purposes requires the prior express permission of the CEVM."
The house rules comply with COM:FOP France, restricting any uses of images of the famous public landmark to non-profit purposes only, except of course incidental or background inclusions of the viaduct or uses in noncommercial sphere like schools, research or study works, décor on desktops or phones as wallpapers, and interior décoration of bedrooms or living rooms. But uses in post cards or exploitations by content creators,  Not OK.
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I found copyright status related non-building structures in the US. Non-building structures in the US do not have copyright. See also: COM:FOP US
Therefore, FOP status in the US is below.
OK for buildings
OK for non-building structures
 Not OK for sculptures, statues, monuments, murals, posters
Ox1997cow (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: the U.S. case is understood. The uncopyrightable works (like dams) have been enumerated under COM:FOP US JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I think South Korean chimneys are OK. Because in English Wikipedia page, Non-building structures include chimneys. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345, Liuxinyu970226, Yann, King of Hearts, and Explicit: I think it's good at PD-non-building structures templates are made country-by-country. Because copyright laws are different country-by-country. For example, bridges are not copyrighted in South Korea and the US, but they are copyrighted in France. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, a boilerplate global template would get unwieldy very quickly. Just have an FoP-country tag for all countries regardless of whether they have FoP or some exception which is not technically FoP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: See {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. So I will make {{Non-building structures-South Korea}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe something starting with "PD-ineligible, such as {{PD-ineligible-SK-architecture}}, would be a better title to indicate what family it is in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I think it's a good idea to replace the word 'architecture' with the word 'structure'. Architectures in South Korea are copyrighted. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, "structure" makes sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I made {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} template.

I had a discussion with some people, and as a result of the discussion, I made the following template.


No copyright on artistic work
The depicted structure situated in or visible from public space (e.g. a building, a bridge, an overpass) in South Korea South Korea is ineligible for copyright as it is a simple or ordinary work with no architect's artistic properties that would have made it a copyrighted structure. It may also be a work of an engineer (like an infrastructure), not of an architect. In a few countries like North Korea, architecture is not among their copyrightable works, and in a few countries like South Korea and the United States of America, bridges are not among their copyrightable works.
Notes:
  • Different jurisdictions have different levels of originality with regards to works of art or architecture: see Threshold of originality for more details.
  • In a few countries like France and Thailand, bridges may be among their copyrightable works.
  • A building or a bridge is eligible for copyright if it is a true architectural work; images of such buildings or bridges are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons unless there is an applicable freedom of panorama (that allows commercial uses) in the jurisdiction where the building or the bridge is located; see Commons:Freedom of panorama for more details.
  • For images of architecture that are in public domain, please use {{PD-old-architecture}}. Refer to its documentation for jurisdiction-specific tags.

English ∙ Tagalog ∙ 한국어 ∙ slovenščina ∙ +/−

How about this template?

If there are any mistakes, you can correct them. The Korean translation will be written after the English original is corrected.

Ox1997cow (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Then, how about make {{PD-US-nonbuilding-structure}}? The United States Copyright Law also doesn't protect non-building structures. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: . No need. No one's gonna nominate static structures of U.S. for deletion because "no FOP". Because it is 100% accepted that everything static-looking from the United States (buildings, arches, pavilions, dams, mansions, churches, homes, and other similar static works) are acceptable here, whether or not they are called as architecture by their law. The only things that are problematic are artistic works that are recent or contemporary (like sculptures, public monuments like Korean War Veterans Memorial, and public murals). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Ok. However, there is no Commons-acceptable FoP in South Korea, so {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} is needed. And, are there any errors in {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}}? Ox1997cow (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The template seems fine. But still, best to consult admins or other users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Why some photos of PNB 118 is nominated for deletion request?

I have noticed that several PNB 118 photos have been nominated for deletion requests.

List(I only included photos that clearly include PNB 118.):

There is freedom of panorama in Malaysia, so photos of PNB 118 are allowed on Wikimedia Commons.

By the way, Why some photos of PNB 118 is nominated for deletion request?

There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, but photos of Lotte World Tower uploaded by me have not been nominated for deletion requests.

List (I only included Lotte World Tower in the file name.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: please read the reasons. I clearly stated the reasons. And these are not DRs but requests for speedy deletions. Malaysian FOP is irrelevant. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
For the SoKor images, DM probably applies. But I cannot bother some of the fireworks images that intentionally included the tower. I will let other users decide on them. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see the reason. Anyway, I think five photos of Lotte World Tower and fireworks are all applied DM. Before uploading pictures of South Korean buildings or sculptures, I check whether DM is applied or not. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: the reason is there. Just have a closer look at the speedy deletion boilerplate tags. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Does not protecting non-building structures under South Korean copyright law affect FoP status in South Korea?

South Korean copyright law does not protect non-building structures, so non-building structures such as bridges, dams and tunnels are public domain in South Korea.

By the way, does not protecting non-building structures under South Korean copyright law affect FoP status in South Korea?

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: no. It doesn't change the no FOP status of SoKor as seen at File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg. It will continue to be a "red" country on the map, just as the current status of the Philippines does (despite the allowance of pre-December 15, 1972 buildings through a loophole in our copyright law which is non-retroactivity and the validity of American colonial-era Act 3134 of 1924 for buildings that were completed before the cutoff date, as the colonial law didn't protect architecture). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Photos of architecture and sculptures in Belgium taken before 15 July 2016

There is freedom of panorama in Belgium after 15 July 2016.

So photos of architecture and sculptures in Belgium taken after 15 July 2016 is allowed.

By the way, how about photos of them taken before 15 July 2016?

Are they OK?

Ox1997cow (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: IMO they are OK! As long as the buildings and artworks still exist on the date of official introduction of FOP there. See Category:Belgian FOP cases/undeleted. By the way the wording (COM:FOP Belgium) suggests only permanent works are covered by FOP. IMO the situation in Belgium is different in situation in Seychelles, in SoKor, in U.S., in the Philippines etc.. Each country has its own FOP or FOP-like provisions and rules, unless it has identical or similar rules to its former mother country (when it was still a colony). Like COM:FOP India - COM:FOP UK, and COM:FOP São Tomé and Príncipe - COM:FOP Portugal. But generally you must not assume that rules of most countries are the same in some way or another. Please raise this at COM:VPC. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between "incidental" and "trivial"?

South Korean de minimis clause uses "incidental", and the US de minimis clause uses "trivial".

Then, What is the difference between "incidental" and "trivial"?

Ox1997cow (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: when an infringing object incidental, it means it is just "a minor accompaniment to something else" or it is just there "by chance" and not intentional (some meaning courtesy of Oxford). If an object is trivial, it is "of little value and importance" (Oxford). Note a condition at COM:DM United States. But I say this to you, that the U.S. law does not recognize DM. Nowhere in their Copyright Act has explicit mention of it. The U.S. DM concept came from various court cases, which Commons now applies in U.S. derivative work-related or U.S. freedom of panorama-related deletion requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I know all two cases are not applied when infringing object is too prominent. Can you provide an example with deletion requests that result in kept? Ox1997cow (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
For example, in File:Lotte World Groupe F Seoul.jpg, main objects are fireworks, so Lotte World Tower is incidental. (Related deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lotte World Groupe F Seoul.jpg) Ox1997cow (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: please analyze the DRs and the resulting closures. There are some things that I cannot provide examples because de minimis is an incoherent concept that varies country by country. Worse it is only made into existence by court rulings and not by laws that do not explicitly mention it (like the case of the U.S.). In some countries like ours de minimisfor FoP-reliant works does not exists, simply because of the doctrine "what is not written by the law is allowed" (but this doctrine is not allowed here per the policy of protecting copyrights of architects and sculptors of public works).
U.S. de minimis is much "tighter" as the copyrighted sculpture must not be noticeable and must either be out of much of the image or successfully blend with buildings or uncopyrightable objects (like plants, people, and/or nature). Thus "trivial" and not incidental or accessory Thus U.S. DM is too narrow.
De minimis thus is judged by case-to-case bases. Do not expect that it is the same in all countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are you taking such an extreme attitude?

I've come to know that you're taking an extreme attitude after two deletion discussions.

At Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates, you brought only cases where NoFoP templates were misused and insisted that use of NoFoP templates should only be used in category namespace.

I told that even if use of NoFoP templates is changed to be used in category namespace, there is no guarantee that it will not be misused.

And, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa, you suggested that file names containing "Burj Khalifa" should be banned.

Even if I agree to ban file name File:Burj Khalifa.jpg(This file name had been misused too much.), I cannot accept your extreme argument of banning file names containing "Burj Khalifa".

If file names containing "Burj Khalifa" are banned, when uploading skyline or cityscape photos including Burj Khalifa, we won't be able to choose the detail file names. (For example, "Dubai skylines with Burj Khalifa 2021.jpg" cannot be used.)

In any case, before making any extreme claims, please reconsider that doing so may not solve the problem, and may harm good users.

Ox1997cow (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I won't get involved at COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa anymore. But I felt it is best to recommend most extreme actions, as the whole deletion request has been causing errors to tools of some admins, and the need to pre-emptively stop further uploads may be needed. Setting up an archive is just a band-aid solution: I wouldn't be surprised if the DR soon will reach 100 threads within the next decade But I also provided a more permanent suggestion there — the need to introduce freedom of panorama in UAE. Thus all this debate and bickering by all of us would stop. I am a type of person who thinks of what will happen in the very near future. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the comment that someone suggested to use the edit filter to warn the user if they try to upload a photo file names containing "Burj Khalifa". This is a compromise that came out of my and your disagreement process. How about you? Ox1997cow (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
And at Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates, why you brought only cases where NoFoP templates were misused and suggested that use of NoFoP templates should only be used in category namespace? Ox1997cow (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: on edit filter message: I'm fine with that, as long as the edit filter message (or should I say: no-FOP edit filter feature message) brings clear notice, on why the name is flagged as such, like:

Attention: you are going to upload a file that contains an unfree artistic work. Please do not upload your file unless that artistic work is incidental or just a minor part of the whole file. Reason: Burj Khalifa is a copyrighted architectural work in UAE, that has no freedom of panorama. Therefore permission for commercial Creative Commons license from its architect Adrian Smith (still alive) is needed.

There will be two buttons immediately below the upload form when this edit filter message is triggerwd: "Cancel upload" and "Ignore message and continue upload the file anyway." If the latter is selected, a mechanism triggers the listing of the uploader's action at the abuse log (example of abuse logs: mine, yours). The edit filter message and abuse log listing features must be applied to all, regardless of the user rights or status (regardless if one is a newcomer or one is an uploader or contributor since around 2000s).
Re: the no-FOP templates. Please do not use it as a comparison as the no-FOP template and the filtering of file name matters are different matters. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
What if the editing filter works in the same way for Lotte World Tower? Ox1997cow (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: maybe. And also, for the likes of Burj al-Arab and its variant names (Burj Al Arab or Burj Arab), Louvre Pyramid and its French name, Charging Bull, and others from countries that I don't expect to have FOP introductions or full FOP introductions (for the likes of Denmark, U.S., etc.). Unless the situations become favorable (that is, there are actual attempts at introducing FOP or full FOP and not just proposals, plans, or drawing board discussions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Of course, these editing filters will filter out famous buildings or sculptures in countries without freedom of panorama(such as Burj Khalifa, Lotte World Tower, Louvre Pyramid, Charging Bull), but not less famous ones. Also, be careful not to work with buildings or sculptures in countries with freedom of panorama.(such as Tokyo Skytree, CN Tower, Atomium, Cristo Redentor do Rio de Janeiro) Ox1997cow (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
In other words, that is OK,
Right example: Lotte World Tower (There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea.)

Attention: you are going to upload a file that contains an unfree artistic work. Please do not upload your file unless that artistic work is incidental or just a minor part of the whole file. Reason: Lotte World Tower is a copyrighted architectural work in South Korea, that has no freedom of panorama. Therefore permission for commercial Creative Commons license from its architect Kohn Pedersen Fox is needed.

But that is  Not OK.
Wrong example: CN Tower (There is freedom of panorama in Canada.)

Attention: you are going to upload a file that contains an unfree artistic work. Please do not upload your file unless that artistic work is incidental or just a minor part of the whole file. Reason: CN Tower is a copyrighted architectural work in Canada, that has no freedom of panorama. Therefore permission for commercial Creative Commons license from its architect WZMH Architects is needed.

Ox1997cow (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: it is a common sense. No need to give filter warnings regarding works from countries with FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
So in your country the Philippines, which buildings and sculptures would be applied the editing filter to? (There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines.) Ox1997cow (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: unsure, since the FOP provision is still pending in the w:House of Representatives of the Philippines. Plus there is a proposal to define the Philippine FOP scope to private and/or domestic purposes only. Commons may accept domestic purpose-FOP: {{FoP-Austria}} is domestic only (see the template note). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

On pending Philippine FOP

Just an added info @Ox1997cow: . From my conversation with Howdy.carabao off-wiki (on Messenger) regarding the nature of House Bills here: if a House Bill remains pending (and not approved) in the w:House of Representatives of the Philippines (HOR) and the current meeting of the Congress (the w:18th Congress of the Philippines) ends, the Bill will die. In case the same Bill is approved in HOR but there is no equivalent Bill in the w:Senate of the Philippines, the Bill will also die. Note that we have a bicameral legislature, thus it is more easier "for a camel to pass the eye of the needle" than to pass the laws. Note that the 18th Congress will end sometime in 2022 (next year [!]) as per the enwiki article.

The latest hearing at HOR discussing the three pending IP Bills (including House Bill 8620 that contains the FOP provision) was held in August 2021. Fortunately the FOP provision was not flagged for contention, but there is some contention on two other aspects — extended licensing (Netflix and Motion Picture Association of America lobbyists were also part of the hearings) and orphan works (there is a possibility for orphan works clause to be axed). Another contentious aspect, power to takedown infringing works on digital and new media, was tackled on the September hearing. For this reason, I do not expect the intellectual property amendments to be fully passed anytime this year, as opposed to what Wikivoyage admins and senior editors would expect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
If so, freedom of panorama in the Philippines continues to be left without this? Ox1997cow (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Unhappiness

I hope that consultation with a mental health professional can help you with it. I value your contributions, and I hope they continue.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking a few things about introducing edit filters.

At Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa, Ixfd64 suggested to use the edit filter to warn the user if they try to upload a photo file names containing "Burj Khalifa".

This is a compromise that came out of my and your disagreement process.

I talked to you about this last time. And, I've been thinking a few things about introducing edit filters.

First of all, the edit filter works when we use the name of a building or sculpture in a country where there is no freedom of panorama in the file name.

For example, Burj Khalifa(no freedom of panorama in UAE), Lotte World Tower(no freedom of panorama in South Korea), Monument to the motherland(no freedom of panorama in Ukraine)

I think the edit filter should work if we add a category of buildings or sculptures from countries where there is no freedom of panorama to the file, too.

For example, Category:Burj Khalifa, Category:Lotte World Tower, Category:Monument to the Motherland, Kyiv

The reason is that we can upload without using the building or sculpture name in the file name.

For example, we can upload an single photo of Burj Khalifa as Dubai Skyscraper.jpg.

What would you like some additional thoughts on edit filter?

I will gather my and your opinions and submit them.

Ox1997cow (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

However, in order to introduce FoP, the copyright law must be amended, and it is difficult and takes a long time to amend the law. So, it is better to use the method that is available right now. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I leave the decisiom to other users. I won't meddle in the filter matter again.
UAE FOP is actually easy to amend, IMO. Just adding the word "photographs" makes a big difference. Two available options exist:

OPTION 1.Presenting fine arts, applied and plastic arts or architectural works in [photographs and] broadcasting programmes, if such works are permanently present in public places.

OPTION 2. (if buildings only is desired to make it less contentious)
Presenting fine arts, applied and plastic arts in broadcasting programmes, if such works are permanently present in public places.
[Presenting architectural works in photographs and broadcasting programmes, if such works are permanently present in or visible from public places.]

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Löschung von Fotografien / Erasing photographs

Meine Versuche, eine Genehmigung zu bekommen, schlugen fehl. In diesem Fall ist die Löschung für mich in Ordnung. Viele Grüße und vielen Dank.--Horst70 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

My attempts to get a permit failed. In that case the deletion is okay for me. Best regards and thank you very much.--Horst70 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hallo, lieber JWilz12345, vielen Dank für Deine Meldung. Ich kann mich jetzt doch noch einmal mit einer neuen Information zurückmelden. Das Museum hat mich wieder kontaktiert: sie wollen bei den Künstlern nachfragen, ob diese eine Genehmigung erteilen möchten. Bei neuen Informationen melde ich mich bei Dir zurück. Best regards --Horst70 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, dear JWilz12345, Thank you very much for your report. I can now get back to you with a new piece of information. The museum contacted me again: they want to ask the artists if they would like to give permission. I will get back to you when I get some feedback. Best regards --Horst70 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWilz12345/Archive_2&oldid=615935009"