To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.
Thank you for adding images to Wikivoyage. Gizza (roam) 12:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Lack of FoP in the Philippines
[edit]Hi. I reverted your edit to File:Ermita Manila.jpg. I disagree that the modern skyscrapers in the background are de minimis. We can remove this file from here when Commons stops deleting photos from the Philippines because that country's new FoP law has gone into effect some time in the fall. For now, more such photos are going to have to be uploaded locally if we want to save them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I think you must look the main subject first before claiming it fails standards at Commons. It is in public domain: the monument was completed in 1910s and its last surviving desogner, w:Richard Kissling, died in 1919. Hence it is already in public domain both in the Philippines (commons:Template:PD-Philippines-artistic work) and in the United States (as a pre-1926 artwork). The buildings in the background are de minimis, because the main subject of the image is the monument itself. The Flickr description also proves that. Commons also hosts images of city scapes like File:Manila skyline day.jpg and File:Big Manila.jpg, the former was once deleted on Commons but was successfully restored on the basis of de minimis. JWilz12345 (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- And the fact that we do not have FOP yet does not mean we are deprived of DM-compliant images of cityscapes of the Philippines that can even be used on Tagalog Wikipedia etc.. What is not OK as of today are images whose architecture and contemporary public art are tha main or intended subjects of the images. JWilz12345 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- If or when that photo is nominated for deletion on Commons, please make the argument that the skyscrapers are de minimis. I don't think they are at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek as it seems the photo I moved to Commons survived for at least three years (it is reasonable to assume that the buildings in the background are just incidental), the local image can now be removed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Has there ever been a deletion request thread on it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- None so far, but I do not see any problem as the buildings are just incidental, unlikely to attract architects' lawsuits. Being incidental and at the background, there is no significant value and it would not impact the building architects' normal exploitation rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Probably not, but I wouldn't put it past a Commons admin to delete it. I'm still concerned about it. Is there a way to get an advisory opinion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I think I'll ping some Commons peeps whom I'm familiar with in terms of FoP and de minimis things: ping @Adamant1, Yann, Abzeronow, Rosenzweig: (the latter three are Commons admins). To obtain their comments if the file is OK to stay in Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, much appreciated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. What's the threshold of originality for buildings in the Philippines? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 the main issue is if the buildings seen at the background of File:Ermita Manila.jpg are incidental or not. My assumption is that those buildings are just incidental ("de minimis" or not the main subjects), and so OK for Commons. But I would want more third opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but even if the buildings aren't de minimis it really wouldn't matter if they are to generic to be copyrightable to begin with. I don't think there's an issue with the image because the buildings are to generic to matter and you can't really make them out in detail with how the lighting in the image is anyway. Like Yann says, they are unavoidable. But also not unique or viewable enough in the background for it to matter either IMO. It doesn't really matter what's in the background of image at the end of the day if the photograph is to washed out or the subject is to generic to be meaningfully copied. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 the main issue is if the buildings seen at the background of File:Ermita Manila.jpg are incidental or not. My assumption is that those buildings are just incidental ("de minimis" or not the main subjects), and so OK for Commons. But I would want more third opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. What's the threshold of originality for buildings in the Philippines? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, much appreciated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I think I'll ping some Commons peeps whom I'm familiar with in terms of FoP and de minimis things: ping @Adamant1, Yann, Abzeronow, Rosenzweig: (the latter three are Commons admins). To obtain their comments if the file is OK to stay in Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Probably not, but I wouldn't put it past a Commons admin to delete it. I'm still concerned about it. Is there a way to get an advisory opinion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- None so far, but I do not see any problem as the buildings are just incidental, unlikely to attract architects' lawsuits. Being incidental and at the background, there is no significant value and it would not impact the building architects' normal exploitation rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Has there ever been a deletion request thread on it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek as it seems the photo I moved to Commons survived for at least three years (it is reasonable to assume that the buildings in the background are just incidental), the local image can now be removed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- If or when that photo is nominated for deletion on Commons, please make the argument that the skyscrapers are de minimis. I don't think they are at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure about the Philippines, but this would be OK in France, as the buildings are unavoidable when taking a picture of the monument. Yann (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- It would depend on how such an "incidental inclusion" would be defined there, by law or the courts. Germany has FOP, so no problem there because of that, but the buildings could not be de minimis / incidental inclusion (or actually unwesentliches Beiwerk, the German legal term) because of a very restrictive 2014 court decision. No problems in the US, because a photo is considered to not be a derivative of a building. --Rosenzweig (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd definitely need more details on how Philippines defines de minimis, but what Yann and Rosenzweig say are true about France and Germany (Germany is extremely strict about de minimis so that factors into my deletions of interiors where there isn't FoP in Germany). Based on the Ayala Street UDR, I'd say the building would be OK. Abzeronow (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
FoP for buildings in Russia since 2014
[edit]Please explain this edit. What is the relevant policy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) c:COM:FOP Russia, I assume, which claims it's okay for buildings. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek see c:COM:FOP Russia. Seems the community here failed to notice that important event almost a decade ago, so several Russian buildings are still locally kept here. As English Wikivoyage does not have an equivalent of w:en:Template:NowCommons, it is more convenient to use the speedy delete template with the rationale. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- From this Wikimedia blog article dated 2014: "Now it is allowed to take photos in any public territory. The photographers are no more formally offenders, as before when nobody was allowed to sell postcards with modern buildings without the permission of the architect or his successors (despite the fact that such situation was quite usual in practice). Unfortunately, monuments are still not covered by the introduced amendments." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:SHB2000, how come I don't see the Commons file's usage on Wikivoyage now? Wasn't the file in use? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- It comes up on my end. Maybe there's a bit of a lag? I usually notice that when file moving. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Could be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SHB2000 wait, why did you remove the tag? It is a duplicate of a Commons copy, and it is a building (not a monument) so allowed now on Commons under Russian law since 2014. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- It was being used. I've gone ahead and replaced the image on Murmansk with the new file, though (and thus deleted it). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 04:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- It comes up on my end. Maybe there's a bit of a lag? I usually notice that when file moving. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:SHB2000, how come I don't see the Commons file's usage on Wikivoyage now? Wasn't the file in use? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
