Invitation to complete a survey regarding WPWP CampaignEdit

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:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeL7I25Uxx_3Tyu9EgS2Bhix32Mh073LRsrr4tuH-i1yyRCZg/viewform

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeL7I25Uxx_3Tyu9EgS2Bhix32Mh073LRsrr4tuH-i1yyRCZg/viewform

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)

FOP USEdit

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)

@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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)