User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 16

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

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Balintawak Interchange

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jollibee advertisements

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:McDonald's advertisements in the Philippines

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Privacy Issues Archived: My belated Reply-Rejoinder

These pictures are very informative - Category:Philippine government response to the COVID-19 pandemic

@Howhontanozaz, EugeneZelenko, Fæ, Gone Postal, and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): those who participated in the August 2020 Village pump discussion about privacy issues. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Noted sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Exclusively" wording

Hello Judgefloro. Can you clarify if the intent wording "exclusively" in your public domain statement implies that all of your images are for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons only, or if your files are to be shared and used by anyone in the world however they wish/desire (and the word merely means you only upload images here and not in other online repository). To quote:

Judge Florentino Floro, the owner, to repeat, Donor Florentino Floro of all these photos hereby donate gratuitously, freely and unconditionally Judge Floro all these photos to and for Wikimedia Commons, exclusively, for public use of the public domain, and again without any condition whatsoever.

This concern was brought by Mo Billings at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/08#Privacy issues. Unrelated to the essence of the discussion thread, but that concern was raised because the wording might be conflicting with the release of your files into public domain. In principle, if you release your files into public domain, you have no control over anyone who want to use your images (based on P199) and these are not only confined to exclusive use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons, but also to use outside Wikimedia as well, such as the use of your images at Wikimedia Commons on YouTube vlogs, Facebook posts by other people, post cards, and images for commercial T-shirt prints. Can you please clarify about the wording "exclusively"? Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


My files are to be shared and used by anyone in the world however they wish/desire
The 2 Comma in Wikimedia Commons, exclusively, are used for underscoring the fact that all the photos take by Donor FlorentinoFloro and with assistance of Editor User:Judgefloro were, are and will be uploaded only to Wikimedia Commons and not to any other sites; the 2 commas stress separate this Matter from the Other matter of Public Domain Absolute Donation, meaning, no need to cite Judge Floro as creator; meaning also, that Judge Floro transferred all his rights whatsoever to Wikimedia Commons; and the transferring allows anybody in this world to copy, reproduce or Xerox the photos uploaded for any purpose under Wikimedia Commons philosophy of sharing wisdom to future generation for educational purposes; [https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1926februarydecisions.php?id=18 The comma and semicolon are both used to divide sentences and parts of sentences, the only difference being that the semicolon makes the division a little more pronounced than the comma;
Wikimedia Commons, exclusively, like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:4051Typhoon_Vamco_crisis_intervention_Hagonoy,_Bulacan_38.jpg (Note: Judge Florentino Floro, the owner, to repeat, Donor Florentino Floro of all these photos hereby donate gratuitously, freely and unconditionally Judge Floro all these photos to and for Wikimedia Commons, exclusively, for public use of the public domain, and again without any condition whatsoever) and all other photos of Judge Floro contain this extra Description aside from the General License template therefor;
As I said, I am ahead of my times, and since I first uploaded my photos per User:Ramon FVelasquez, I am aware of Cyberstalking, bullying, Cybercrime criminals and specifically my relatives who hate me; many use alternate accounts to follow my works; hence, with advanced mind, I tagged all my photos uploaded in Commons with this Free For All Men template Description without any bounds; as I opine that this tagging puts my photos outside FOP No panorama in the Philippines, as I see in the 4 corners of the Copyright Law and SC Circulars;
There is a great Legal Difference as far a Copyright Law is concerned (even if commons has no Fair Use) when the photos are Donated absolutely and when the License is restricted; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

From your reply, Judgefloro, it means you have transferred all of your rights, even copyrights, to Wikimedia itself, and in effect these are in public domain, as like you said, you no longer hold any rights to any of your images and you explicitly allow all people around the world to use them however they wish or desire. Paging @Mo Billings: . The full PD statement of Judgefloro is hereby confirmed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

2nd Clarification of Absolute and Unconditional Donation-Transfer of my uploaded photos to Commons

Good noontime from hereat Philippines; for clarity's' sake, yes, I have transferred all of my rights, even copyrights, to Wikimedia itself, and in effect these are in public domain, as like I stated, I no longer hold any rights to any of my images and I explicitly allow all people around the world to use them however they wish or desire: and in addition, they and all or anybody need not cite or mention my name in the photos they take from Wikimedia Commons which I donated absolutely - my full PD statement of is hereby confirmed and ratified, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I am still unclear on the use of the word "exclusively" even in this explanation. If Judgefloro is saying that the only place they are uploading their images to is Commons, that's fine, but I'm not sure that's what they are saying. And the comments about Freedom of Panorama need to be addressed. Mo Billings (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

3rd Clarification of Absolute and Unconditional Donation-Transfer of my uploaded photos to Commons

Happy Holidays; Thanks for your visit and messages; I wish to clarify that I am 67 years senior citizen and during our times we have no internet and gadgets; even if I belatedly learned somethings about Internet, still, my many years of being a Lawyer aned Judge still makes me what I write; maybe it is the language difference as in Philosophy of language; in using the word exclusively with comma, we lawyers and judges use often these tools of statutory construction and legal writing; the comma makes reference to Commons: what I mean is that of the Total edit count:1,625,331+ contributions to Commons, I only uploaded 10,000 to Facebook more than 5 years ago, stopped using FB, and I uploaded about 700 photos in photobucket and about 900 in Flickr accounts of mine 5 years ago; ever since I, Judge Florentino Floro took pictures, edited and uploaded with the aid or companionship of editor User:Ramon FVelasquez in more than 120,000 photos in Commons until his Illness; I and User:Judgefloro took pictures, edited and uploaded his aid or companionship in Commons more 1,625,331+ or photos; and I hereby CLARIFY that as I responded above - for clarity's' sake, yes, I have transferred all of my rights, even copyrights, to Wikimedia itself, and in effect these are in public domain, as like I stated, I no longer hold any rights to any of my images and I explicitly allow all people around the world to use them however they wish or desire: and in addition, they and all or anybody need not cite or mention my name in the photos they take from Wikimedia Commons which I donated absolutely - my full PD statement of is hereby confirmed and ratified, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I am now using this Note of Public Domain in all my photos

For example - this Cat photo contains this (Note: Judge Florentino Floro, the owner, to repeat, Donor Florentino Floro of all these photos hereby donates gratuitously, freely and unconditionally : Judge Floro underscores that all these photos uploaded to and for Wikimedia Commons, my - this file - these files - are to be shared and used by anyone in the world however they wish or desire, that is, for public use of the public domain, and again without any condition whatsoever; I have transferred all of my rights, even copyrights, to Wikimedia Commons itself, and in effect these are in public domain, as like I stated, I no longer hold any rights to any of my images and I explicitly allow all people around the world to use them however they wish or desire: and in addition, they and all or anybody need not cite or mention my name in the photos they take from Wikimedia Commons which I donated absolutely - my full PD statement is hereby confirmed and ratified). very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg

File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Keep Because No Copyright whatsoever exists or is in favor of any artist who creates anything in a Catholic Church; reason is the Ecclesiastical and International Law agreements and Conventions regarding ownership of Church property and accessories in the titular Roman Catholic Bishop or Bishop or in this case the Archbishop of Manila Pabillo; when an artist creates he transfers by operation of Canon Law vis-à-vis exception to Copyright Law all his rights for he has been paid as Commissioned by the Bishop Titular;
  • rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
  • De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;

Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • 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)
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;
  • I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U.P. Town Center

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law: DE MINIMIS: and the 4 Years statute of limitations bars the Deletion of these photos

 Keep U.P. Town Center is a commercial establishment although managed by Ayala Malls, it is part of UP Diliman hence OWNED by the Government or Govt controlled corporation or institution; and it is a) a Tourist attraction or b) interesting point c) commercial business building; NO COPYRIGHT whatsoever exists and the photos are beyond the scope of Copyright law; all Government properties are not covered by Copyright Law even if any sculptor has been paid or engaged therein;
 Keep Sec. 176. Works of the Government. - Chapter IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED 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.
  • All these photos are DE MINIMIS and as I repeatedly and legally wrote - Courts and Laws do not deal with trifles or nonsense suits or crying by those who do not have any right or LOCUS Standi to question these Commons photos;
  • Prescription of 4 years Copyright Law bars and estops anybody from questioning copyright infringement, if ever, and assuming ex gratia argumenti only : hence on October 2020, Prescription Dismisses Any and All Mass Deletion Requests on these photos;
  • Presidential Decree No. 49, s. 1972 “Decree on Intellectual Property.” Section 58. No damages may be recovered under this Decree after four years from the time the cause of action arose.
  • rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
  • De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;

Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • 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)
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;
  • I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Santa Ana Public Market, Manila

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-a-vis RA 3019 Graft Law: DE MINIMIS and the 4 Years statute of limitations bars the Deletion of these photos

 Keep Sec. 176. Works of the Government. - Chapter IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED 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.
  •  Keep Keep Because the Tourism Office of Santa Ana when I visited the Barangay Hall, expressly gave me permission to take photos of their monuments and memorials, like this and their public properties; this is a Local tourist attraction, Local Government Property; and only the heirs of the sculptors or architects may question any FOP infringement in the Special Courts, as strictly provided by the 2019 New S.C. Circular, implementing the Copyright and Intellectual Property laws in the Civil Code; with more reason, any editor here has no Legal rights whatsoever to question any Uploading; besides, the Aguinaldo Monument like Rizal Monuments in the Philippines and Cavite are owned by the National or here the Local Government Code; hence, under this Special Law, the Artists alleged creators have no Copyright rights since they were paid by the Municipal Government; in addition the façade or exterior is unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of National or Local Government which granted me express permission to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantage in the future elections, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
  • All these photos are DE MINIMIS and as I repeatedly and legally wrote - Courts and Laws do not deal with trifles or nonsense suits or crying by those who do not have any right or LOCUS Standi to question these Commons photos;
  • Presidential Decree No. 49, s. 1972 “Decree on Intellectual Property.” Section 58. No damages may be recovered under this Decree after four years from the time the cause of action arose.
  • rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
  • De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • 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)
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullible and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page; I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Judgefloro/Archive_16&oldid=521088122"