Commons:Deletion requests/File:EDSA Carousel Balintawak Guadalupe 07.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Apparently a modern building, lacking commercial license from the architect. Uploader seems to continue uploading unfree works here despite some notices received. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment and Keep: A & S Lamps Lighting Store has been there since 1980 or more than 40 years; built at EDSA, Apolonio Samson, Balintawak 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 was also be a work of an engineer (like an infrastructure), not of an architect; it is a minimalist-type building that applies the usual box/warehouse-type design that is too ordinary to be considered as an architecture; it can be easily copied and reproduced as an another building (provided that the chain name is not trademark-pirated); so, this building is safe to be depicted commercially, without designer's copyright licensing permission; Vide: Divimart; regrettably I humbly oppose, sincerely RamaGaspar (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC).
- @RamaGaspar: I cannot see anything minimal here. It is not a dull warehouse-type building but a well-built building with some design in its roofing extension. If existing since 1980s then fails the December 1972 cutoff date of older Act 3134 of 1924 (that did not protect architects' finished buildings): {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment and Keep: A & S Lamps Lighting Store has been there since 1980 or more than 40 years; built at EDSA, Apolonio Samson, Balintawak 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 was also be a work of an engineer (like an infrastructure), not of an architect; it is a minimalist-type building that applies the usual box/warehouse-type design that is too ordinary to be considered as an architecture; it can be easily copied and reproduced as an another building (provided that the chain name is not trademark-pirated); so, this building is safe to be depicted commercially, without designer's copyright licensing permission; Vide: Divimart; regrettably I humbly oppose, sincerely RamaGaspar (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 14:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
