Invitation to complete a survey regarding WPWP Campaign


Hello JWilz12345,

Many thanks for participating in the WPWP campaign.

We are excited about the level of participation, this year and we are happy to inform you that over 90,000 articles were improved with photos in 272 languages Wikipedia.

We'd love to get your feedback. Your feedback will allow us to better meet your expectations for the campaign in the next editions.

Please complete a brief survey so that we may learn about your participation in the campaign, strengths, challenges and your expectations. This information will enable us to improve the next editions of the Campaign.

Follow this link to the Survey:

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

Thank you in advance for taking this survey. Stay safe! 

Kind regards,
Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ]
Communication Manager, WPWP Campaign
-- Message sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply



no, FOP in the US is a dead letter. the main lobbying efforts are informational. after SOPA, the ip bar is now seeking to expand ip monetization by subterfuges like w:CASE Act. [1]
but the automatic "no FOP US" is mistaken, since a lot are PD-US no notice. Slowking4 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Slowking4: I treat U.S. as having no FOP for sculptures and other public art in accordance with c:COM:FOP US. I never count any sculptures that are in PD, including those with no notice or not renewed, like in our situation (the Philippines), because that is not important here. There is no FOP in our country right now, and the copyright law amendment bill is now pending (though regular rules of obtaining license from architects/sculptors still apply while the bill is pending). Both Spanish Law of 1879 and Act 3134 of 1924 existed in the Philippines before, prior to the promulgation of Presidential Decree 49 of 1972 which removed registration and other formalities that don't comply with Berne. Both didn't protect buildings before August 1951, and both also required registration for public art like in the U.S. (10 years copyright duration for the 1879 law, 30 years for the 1924 law, both are renewable), and hence all Philippine sculptures before 1942 are fine, and sculptures from 1942–1972 are 50-50, as there's no immediate accessible database here for public art. Status of buildings from 1951 to 1972 is questionable, because the Presidential Proclamation 137 of 1955 effectively applied the provisions of the Berne throughout the country. And despite these PD exceptions for certain works that may not meet the current 50 years p.m.a. due to different laws before, the Philippines is still a no FOP country. Just like in the U.S.: despite PD-US-no-notice and PD-US-not-renewed (I guess because of different laws before), the country doesn't provide FOP for public art other than buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Also, FOP by practice applies to those buildings and sculptures still in copyright. For public domain works, either due to age or differences in copyright laws during history, then PD applies. It's simple: the Philippines doesn't have FOP (yet) ~ no FOP in U.S. for non-architectural works ~ no acceptable FOP in France etc.. I don't count PD objects of public space like Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, Marine Corps War Memorial, WTC Sphere, the Parthenon, Colosseum, Rizal Monument etc. in determining whether that country has FOP or not, so it's correct that U.S. has no FOP for non-architectural works. It's not a mistake. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
you should be checking US sculptures in the SIRIS database for (c) marks. only around 10% have the formalities. [2] & [3] quick and easy deletion rationales, will get you lots of DRVs. FOP is a wikipedia thing, most people do not know nor care. Slowking4 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Slowking4: I know about that, yet such peculiarities (no notice / not renewed) doesn't automatically give U.S. FOP for public art. My impression that U.S. has no FOP for such art is not a mistake - see also c:COM:FOP US. Just like in the Philippines: the fact that some buildings may be exempt from 50 years p.m.a. because of different laws before (laws that didn't provide copyright protection to architecture) doesn't automatically provide FOP to the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Slowking: The better designation should have been "PD US" (similar to "PD Philippines"). Templates reflect that — c:Template:PD-US-no-notice and c:Template:PD-US-not-renewed. Same as c:Template:PD-Philippines-artistic work, which works for both pre-August 1951 buildings (that are exempted from 50 years p.m.a. due to different law before that didn't protect buildings) and the rest of buildings and also public art whose designers have been dead for 50 years p.m.a. (two in one template, to prevent creation of redundant templates in the future). If your message was because of my question at Commons' VP, that question was because I am curious if there has been lobbying attempts or consultations or the like, but it seems there's none and "no FOP in U.S. for copyrighted public art" will still remain for a very long time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
time has moved on. as we see with the Three Soldiers, the deletionists on english, and deletionists on commons act asynchronously. newbie adds copyvio photo to commons, knocking out fair use version, fair use version deleted seven days, commons image nominated but deleted months later. there is no curation of images, or fair use bot, migration to english.
meanwhile, WMF has a public policy person in DC, but they are worried about holding the line, against attacks on digital lending and UK child "safety". FOP is not on the radar. so it goes.--Slowking4 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ping here @Randy Kryn:, as Slowking4 has replied here. It appears there will be no progress in US-FOP for a while. We have to live on with US FOP cases reaching more than 4K and more photos of public sculptures in the US getting removed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
In fact Randy, WMF and many of its affiliates are too focused on things that no longer relate to FOP, such as gender representation and the things Slowking4 mentioned. Perhaps freedom of panorama introductions lie in the hands of specific user groups or affiliates (like Wikimedia South Africa and Pilipinas Panorama Community). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Join Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021


Hello JWilz12345,

Many thanks for participating in the maiden edition of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos in 2020.

We are glad to inform you that the 2021 edition starts today (1st of July). You are invited to participate in the campaign again this year to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles with photos. For more information, please visit the campaign page here.

If you have any questions or query please feel free to contact anyone from the Organizing Team of WPWP Campaign.

Kind regards,
Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ]
Communication Manager, WPWP Campaign
Message sent using --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Join Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2023


Hello JWilz12345,

Thank you for participating in the previous editions of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos campaign.

We are glad to inform you that this year's edition started on 1 July, 2023. You are invited to participate in the campaign again to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles with photos. For more information about the campaign and how to participate, please visit the campaign page here.

If you have any question or need more information, please either contact the organizing team, leave a message at the campaign's discussion page or send an email to wpwpcampaign

Kind regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC) (On behalf of the Organizing Team, #WPWP Campaign 2023).Reply