Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov

 

 

Copyright discussion

The following works are not protected by copyright law in the Philippines ([1]):

1. Ideas
2. Procedures
3. System methods or operations
4. Concepts
5. Principles
6. Discoveries or more data even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in the work
7. News of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information
8. Any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature
9. Official translation

The following works are copyrightable:

1. Books, Pamphlets and other writings;
2. Periodicals and newspapers;
3. Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery. Whether or not reduced in writing or other material form;
4. Letters;
5. Dramatic or dramatico-musical composition (T.V. or movie scripts), Choreographic works or entertainment in dumb shows;
6. Musical compositions, with or without works;
7. Works of drawing , painting, architecture, sculpture, Engraving, lithography or other works of art, models or designs of work of art;
8. Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture; whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of applied art;
9. Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional relative to geography, topography, architecture or science;
10. Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical racter;
11. Photographic works and cinematographic works and works produced By a process analogous to photography; lantern slides;
12. Audiovisual works and cinematographic works produced by a Process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-Visual recordings;
13. Pictorial illustrations and advertisement
14. Computer programs; and
15. Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

Copyrighted photographs are protected for 50 years after publication.

You need pre-approval to publish photos by the Philippine government if you have any intention of using the photos commercially: From the Republic Act 8293 ([2]), section 176:

"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. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)"

All photos on WikiCommons must be available to any use, including commercial use. As I understand, this excludes photos from the government of Philippines where no explicit approval has been granted.

Thuresson 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase the template

We now have 2 DR's Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov saying that we should rephrase the template. Now we just have to figure out how to do it.

Per discussion we should say something like:

• no copyright subsists in "statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character", which may be reproduced without restriction; and
• no copyright subsists in other government works, created before November 14, 1972; and
• no copyright subsists in other government works, created after November 14, 1972 but the government requires that anyone wishing to exploit such a work for profit seek prior approval from the government agency or office in which the work was created and may have to pay a royalty.

Ideas, suggestions, corrections and improvements are welcome. --MGA73 (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And en:Template:PD-Philippines states that "This file is in the public domain in the United States only if it entered the public domain in the Philippines prior to 1996." If that is true then we need to add that to the template as well. --MGA73 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No. If a work never entered copyright due to law, it cannot have a copyright in the US either. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? Under US law, utilitarian objects are ineligible for copyright. Thus, it would appear that the Mini Maglite torch never entered copyright in the source country due to law, since the source country is the United States. However, the torch was nevertheless ruled to be copyrightable as an artistic work in Sweden by the Swedish Supreme Court, see here. However, if what you wrote is correct, the torch would be ineligible for copyright worldwide. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant "never entered copyright due to law" as in that the work is explicitly ruled exempt from copyright, not that it is not creative enough to pass the threshold of originality, which is a whole different thing. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

per Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov

Am I correct in understanding that images made by the Philippine Givernment are able to use this template?

--User 50 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No. This template only works for official texts and translations of that texts. You cant use it for pictures. --Martin H. (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not nearly so clear cut. Philippine law clearly states that there is no copyright protection for government works, including pictures. That was directly inherited from the US copyright law. But then there is another clause giving some commercial rights to the government -- which may not, strictly speaking, be copyright and may only exist in the Philippines. Naturally, the only case I've seen which upheld that separate protection was over some official works (judicial decisions I think) which by the looks of it were supposed to be exempt from that section. Furthermore that separate protection only started from the early 1970s so there is even better reason to allow works before that. It's a muddy situation though. Look at the first DR above for more details. But we have been allowing some photos, I think. Although they may not be usable commercially in the Philippines itself -- the question is if it is a non-copyright restriction or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Subdivisions?

The template now reads:

"This work is in the public domain in the Philippines and possibly other jurisdictions because it is a work created by an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations..."

However, the law reads

"SEC. 176. Works of the Government. – 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines."

with no mention of any entity except the national government. I think the situation is similar to that in the USA -- Federal government works are free, but those of states (except AR, CA, FL) and municipalities are not. If there is no objection, I intend to modify the template accordingly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. Many provincial and municipal governments in the Philippines do copyright their works. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Local governments, as far as I know, are considered part of the national government. While they have a legal personality, their legal personality does not exist independent of the national government (unlike U.S. states) and their existence is at the complete mercy of Congress.

This was discussed four years ago, and local consensus points in this direction, aided by a local Wikipedian who is a public lawyer. That discussion I think is helpful in understanding the context. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Clear up unclear wording

{{Edit request}}

I almost just had a heart attack thinking that the 14,485 images tagged with this were not validly uploaded and must be deleted due the words However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Fortunately, I was able to clear it up by reading the COM:DEL requests linked above. (Thank God I was wrong! I have enough trouble as it is illustrating my articles about the Philippines!) I propose an urgent addition of this template to the bottom of the template:

There is a non-copyright restriction on files produced by the Philippine government, introduced in Republic Act No. 8293 on 6 June 1997. Specifically, "prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit."[RA 8293/2015 §176.1] However, on Commons, this does not count as a forbidden non-commercial license because it is not an internationally enforceable copyright license. Filipinos, or those who have a connection to the country and who are planning to make a profit from images with this tag, ought to bear this in mind.

Without wording like this, misunderstandings like Special:PermaLink/423034479 are liable to continue.

I have another request as well. "Unless otherwise noted" ought to be removed. That's nowhere in the law; it's not legally valid for them to impose copyright, period. The reason that wording appears on so many Philippine government websites is simply because they may also host fair use material from other sources, like ABS-CBN News. This should either be noted in the template itself, or left unsaid.

@Phwikimaker12, Nat, Sky Harbor, Jameslwoodward, P199, and Jacklee: you are being pinged as you participated in a discussion on these issues in the past. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• The non-commercial restriction is hidden in this vague wording in the template: However, in some instances, the use of this work in the Philippines or elsewhere may be regulated by this law or other laws. Commons decided that this is a non-copyright restriction which is ignored, but English Wikipedia decided that the restrictions make the files unfree (see w:Template:Non-free Philippines government). The templates have been up for deletion on both projects. It is unfortunate that Commons and English Wikipedia didn't come to the same conclusion.

You proposed the wording because it is not an internationally enforceable copyright license but there is no evidence that the "PD-SomeCountryGov" tags are usable at all in other countries. For example, PD-USGov works may be unfree outside the United States. I think that the wording of the template needs to be improved, but your suggested wording doesn't fix the template in my opinion. Besides, this is not a licence copyright tag but a public domain copyrigh tag.

I don't know where the words unless otherwise noted come from. The way the law is worded, it sounds as if a copyright claim from a government agency is invalid. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As the one who wrote the copy for this template, I should note that the Commons decision is a newer precedent, and I personally think the English Wikipedia should consider the Commons precedent. Any government works on the English Wikipedia have been (slowly) moved to Commons to account for the freer licensing terms accorded to Philippine government works, and I'm very inclined to start a conversation on the English Wikipedia to get that previous decision changed or overturned entirely.

Now, the phrase "unless otherwise noted" in the template takes into account, for example, the Commons decision on images of circulating Philippine peso banknotes, which can't be hosted on Commons (a decision I disagree with given this template, but I digress). I'm fine with clarifying the template if it's needed (although preferably in a manner that's more concise than what Psiĥedelisto is suggesting), but it's fairly established precedent, at least among Filipino Wikipedians, that state universities (which PUP is) should be treated like GOCCs in that they are considered part of the government of the Philippines, and that in instances like the portrait that was being discussed for undeletion, works coming from their offices in so far as they relate to official functions are also in the public domain.

(Full disclosure for possible WP:COI purposes: the subject of that undeletion request is Emanuel de Guzman, who happens to be my former sociology professor at the Ateneo de Manila. Can't be too careful now with declaring conflicts of interest, right?) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor: Please, let's get it overturned at enwiki too. I'm very eager to collaborate with you on that!! I don't see the COI as relevant, just a very minor coincidence. If such minor COIs were actionable, certainly I should not have written Disini v. Secretary of Justice, or contributed to Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, or indeed, Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center, as I've had painful personal experience with all three. (Ruling made the law enforceable, petition under the law forced me to leave the country or face the jail I almost ended up in, Bicutan.) Let me propose a new wording...(and, if necessary, we can just split the banknote case off into a new template, mind ) Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal №2

There is a non-copyright restriction on files produced by the Philippine government, introduced in Republic Act No. 8293 on 6 June 1997. Specifically, "prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit."[RA 8293/2015 §176.1] However, on Commons, this does not count as a forbidden non-commercial license because it has no bearing on the copyright status of the work. (Note, however, images of Philippine banknotes are not currently allowed on Commons.) Filipinos, or those who have a connection to the country and who are planning to make a profit from images with this tag, ought to bear this restriction in mind, however.

@Sky Harbor and Stefan2: Thoughts? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Your changes need consensus. 1989 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion

@Psiĥedelisto, Hariboneagle927, and Sky Harbor: take note also of the following past deletion requests to two files that, despite being from PNA which "is the official news agency of the Philippine government" (User:Infrogmation), were still deleted because the rationale was: "PNA terms of use#8 disallowed commercial use" (https://www.pna.gov.ph/terms)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adopted Son of Shakba Ko Lawaisig.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Murad and Galvez MILF-AFP token of appreciation.jpg

Also to note the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Itbayat Church 2019 earthquake.jpg, in which despite the file being from the LGU government of Batanes, was still deleted because of unclear status of works created by local governments here. Additionally is the true status of LGU seals (municipal or provincial levels).

Although the Commons:Deletion requests/File:RJ Nieto during a Philippine Senate hearing on the Proliferation of Fake and or Misleading News and False Information.jpg (a picture of RJ Nieto published by the state TV news agency/ network PTV-4) is leaning towards "keep" despite the DR being pending since March 2020, probably due to a consensus at w:Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive44#Copyright status of PTV4 content?.

Pinging also @A1Cafel, Infrogmation, and Seav: for some comments regarding the modification of this template. Per Howard the Duck's reply at Tambayan Philippines of enwiki, this issue (which has spanned for a decade by now) must be settled as soon as possible. Any final judgment will affect all files tagged as PD-PHGov, as well as LGU seals. I chose to direct the discussion here first since I am certain that the two aforementioned PNA files won't be restored unless this template is 100% fixed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Psiĥedelisto: I personally do not think that we have to change the way en.wiki think. If Commons decide the template is okay then we can just move all the files from en.wiki to Commons.

@JWilz12345: If we re sure the files are okay then I do not think an undeletion have to wait.

What worry me the most is IF we are sure that the files are really free and okay for Commons. It may not be a copyright issue but if you have to pay to use the file then it does not help those that want to use the file. Perhaps what we are discussing is not legal stuff but if we are willing to host files that are not 100 % free. --MGA73 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We have an example where freely licensed photos are banned from Commons. Deleting admin did not summarize but the general point is that Commons have to protect those that use our files from getting a bill for using the files. --MGA73 (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I know about that, but I'm sure that my undeletion requests for two files might be declined sooner once the admins know about this ongoing issue, which seems to be on the verge of limbo. And with regards to what you said about royalties of files, this is actually mentioned (ableit vaguely) in our copyright law. Again to quote:

SEC. 176. Works of the Government. - 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. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)

This generalized wording is the prime concern of this discussion (it seems that our laws are generalized, even the restrictions of photographing buildings [no FOP in our country] and lately the controversial anti-terror law). Yes, all photos by PHL government might not be 100% free because of such wording, which according to @Psiĥedelisto: and most other Filipino Wikipedians are mere non-copyright restrictions but does not mean non-commercial restriction. But if interpreting your comparison of this situation to Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with marco verch (which I actually stumbled by a month before, although this is more of an issue of "Flickrwashing"), it might mean hundreds of PHL government files currently stored here, photos for instance, are on the brink of deletion.

PNA and PTV are both similar, state news agencies and networks.

For the record, IANAL, but what pushed me here is the response by User:Howard the Duck at Tambayan Philippines, who said that issues concerning LGU seals should better be discussed, settled, and cleared here than making another discussion at Tambayan enwik, because final judgment will decide on the fate of PHL government works, including seals of Philippine provinces, cities, and municipalities. For this reason I hope this will be settled sooner than later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I hate repeating myself, but I will repeat myself:

• First off, local governments have no independent legal personality -- the Philippines, after all, is a unitary state. In the previous discussion way back when, it was confirmed by Anyo Niminus, a government lawyer, that local governments are considered part of the "Government of the Philippines", and all their works are considered part of that body. As such, they are also covered under PD per the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code.
• Next, I continue to maintain the position that the provision on non-commercial use is unenforceable: there is no copyright on works of the government of the Philippines, so such permission can only exist outside of copyright. Yes, I think Marcos was generalizing when that provision was inserted in PD 49 when it was passed, and it frankly shouldn't have been inserted, as was the case in the law that it had preceded.
• Finally, agencies of the Philippine government use Wikimedia work freely without credit, and we tolerate it. It would make my day if the Philippine government decides to take legal action for us using work that, prima facie, has no copyright per the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code.

I do think this merits further discussion, yes, but I think it's fairly settled that local governments are included in the "Government of the Philippines" for copyright purposes, and that on its face, works of said government are devoid of copyright. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor: thanks for your response. In my heart I believe that PHL government works are supposed to be in PD. I think the wording that was inserted implies if the publisher or author of a work has added some sort of conditions, but I presume these are non-copyright restrictions, or they are only "ornamental in nature." Nevertheless, some editors tend to disagree, most especially the issue of LGU seals (there's also a past Tambayan forum at w:Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive15#Public domain and seals again which reaffirms that fair use is only allowed for LGU seals). Compounding this is the so-called precautionery principles of Commons, which seems to prevent me of speaking out my true insight (based on my heart and experience) about the de facto or status quo situation of various relevant works here (whether PD-PHgov or the non existence of FOP here, because there's "FOP in practice" with regards to no architectural lawsuits filed against all photographers here just by taking pics of various PHL structures).

But with your renewed insight, I might safely say that for ALL photographic works by PTV, PNA, and other Philippine government agencies (e.g. DPWH, DOST, etc) are OK at Commons. I might also mention Commons:Deletion requests/File:RJ Nieto during a Philippine Senate hearing on the Proliferation of Fake and or Misleading News and False Information.jpg — in which Seav said, "The "otherwise noted" is not actually in the text of the law. This "otherwise noted" is mainly for content whose copyright is owned by third parties and has been transferred to the government, but this sourcing should be explicitly indicated." (But for som reason this wasn't closed as keep since March) Also, Object404 stated that w:Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive44#Copyright status of PTV4 content? has reached a consensus, with Seav stating "As long as the content is clearly the work of PTV (e.g., no news reports showing viral citizen journalism videos), I think the video/media is kosher for Commons as a work of the government." In this case, the two aforementioned files by PNA and also the photo from the LGU of Batanes should be undeleted. But I still need your insight or comment about this before I must push through the undeletion request (since my 5 previous undel requests are still pending for more than a week). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I do not know if {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} can be of any help or inspiration but to me it looks like a similar situation. --MGA73 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: probably in wording format. Paging @Psiĥedelisto: (for a potential "Proposal №3"?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

New "Copyright Rules for the Government" released by IPOPHIL

My heart skipped a beat when I came upon this Memorandum Circular issued by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines last July 3, 2020. A few things that I fear could lead to the deletion of many Template:PD-PhilippinesGov works here in Commons:

• Section 4.1 of the new guidelines state that "No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government created by an officer or employee thereof as a part of his or her regularly prescribed official duties, as defined above. However, this does not create the requirement that such work be made publicly available without restrictions nor does this preclude the Government or any of its agencies from asserting protection in countries where copyright is provided for government works.
• Section 4.3 scares me, it talks about prior approval and possible payment of "reasonable fees akin to royalties" when using the works for profit.

I don't know if we should just shrug this off as non-copyright limitations. I really don't know.

However, these guidelines in particular also clears up many inconsistencies and grey areas constantly discussed here:

• Section 4.2 states that works made for the Government by an author who is not a government employee, including works created by a consultant, are not considered works of the Government unless some kind of contract was signed transferring the copyright from one to the other.
• Section 6 talks about the government as assignee or holder of copyright. Basically, it states that when a natural or juridical person assigns the copyright of a work to the government, the government is "entitled to all rights and remedies which the asignor or licensor had".

These are just based upon my light reading of the guidelines. If someone with even just a sprinkle of legal knowledge could properly explain, it would be greatly appreciated. Maybe Former Judge @Judgefloro: can be of help. Also pinging @Psiĥedelisto, Stefan2, Sky Harbor, JWilz12345, and MGA73: who were actively talking about this issue in the discussion above.

Also, the term "Government" as according to this new guidelines refers to "those offices within the scope of the Civil Service" and then it enumerates them as follows:

• legislative branch
• executive branch
• judicial branch
• subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government of the Philippines, including
  • Government owned and controlled corporations with original charters
  • Armed Forces of the Philippines
  • Civil Service Commission
  • Commission on Elections
  • Commission on Audit
  • Other Constitutional Commissions
  • Chartered institutions, including
    • states universities and colleges and
    • local/community colleges

No specific mentions of local government units. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Howhontanozaz: I just notified the Wikipedia Tambayan community. Hope other editors might chime in. Also paging @HueMan1, Seav, Object404, TagaSanPedroAko, Hariboneagle927, and Ianlopez1115: et. Al. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Also paging @Anyo Niminus, Anyo Niminus~commonswiki, P199, and King of Hearts: over this matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wonder if it's in some way similar to the FBI logo debacle Wikimedia experienced eons ago, where the Feds asserted that the logo is under a restrictive licence. Blakegripling ph (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Files just need to be free in the source country and the US. The wording clearly indicates that it is PD in the Philippines, but for the US it is ambiguous what "copyright is provided for government works" means. The US allows foreign governments to assert copyright, but it is not a prototypical "countr[y] where copyright is provided for government works". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Howhontanozaz: , after reading the Section 4.3, it seems that prior approval has become "mandatory." Before, the wording was:

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. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character.

— in: Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49

Now the wording is:

No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government created by an officer or employee thereof as a part of his or her regularly prescribed official duties, as defined above. However, this does not create the requirement that such work be made publicly available without restrictions nor does this preclude the Government or any of its agencies from asserting protection in countries where copyright is provided for government works. While the government does not own the copyright to a work of any of its officers or employees when such work was created as a part of the regularly prescribed official duties of the latter, the government is not precluded from exercising proprietary rights over the work against any party.

— in: Sec. 4, 4.1 "No copyright on works of the Government," IPOPHIL Memorandum Circular No. 2020-024

Any natural or juridical person, association, entity, or institution may use and exploit the works of the Philippine government; Provided, that prior approval is obtained in the following instances:

a. From the government agency or office wherein the work is created, for exploitation of such work for profit. The agency or office may impose as a condition the payment of reasonable fees akin to royalties;

b. From both the government agency and the private author in case of works of joint authorship if such work will be exploited for profit;

c. From the government agency or office where the government is the transferee of copyright through assignment, bequest or otherwise; and

d. From the authors of speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character, for the purpose of making a collection thereof.

— in: Sec. 4, 4.3 "Use and Exploitation of Works of the Government," IPOPHIL Memorandum Circular No. 2020-024

The only instances in which prior approval is not needed are "use of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character." (Sec. 4, 4.4 "Use and Exploitation of Works of the Government," IPOPHIL Memorandum Circular No. 2020-024).

The word "provided" is stronger than the previous "however" IMO. It seems to indicate that Philippine government works are no longer 100% free, hence no longer public domain in full. The copyright issue might have cleared, but ownership (proprietary) issue is another thing that might cause troubles later. I fear that three of the photos that I requested to be undeleted (with two having cropped variants) might get /deleted again/ as a result, in particular this photo of the damaged Itbayat church during the 2019 Batanes earthquake. In our country, copyright is synonymous with the ownership and not distinct from each other as said by Patrickroque01 (through our chat on FB Messenger with regards to recent Commons:FOP Philippines issues and mass deletion requests lately).

There is also allusion at d. of Sec. 4, 4.1 that if "making a collection" (a collection of government works?), prior permission is /mandatory/ ("provided" wording). Such "collection" is also listed as /an exception/ in the Sec 4, 4.4 that lists reuses that does not need /mandatory prior permission/. Paging @Psiĥedelisto: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Same daunting questiom from JWilz12345: Will this affect photos of NHCP plaques? (in particular File:Church of the holy sacrifice historical marker 2.jpg and File:Aurorahouse2jf.JPG which I requested to be restored lately)? 05:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Paging also @Thuresson: for this issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Reading the short memorandum felt like reading a whole novel in half an hour. I barely understood anything at a glance, then noticed the double negative in Section 4.4.3. That does have lots of implications, and I am glad it has been enumerated above. Thus, I ask, what would become of govt agency logos should that take effect, such as LRTA for instance? They can get removed too quickly. What about historic images from govt agencies? What would become of its copyright, despite them being mere archivists and not the photographers themselves, for instance? This is indeed troubling. Higad Rail Fan (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a hunch that, despite the government claiming no subsisting copyright, the new rules might fail the 5 fundamental precautionary measures. The provisions also discourage commercial exploits without prior permission, and that prior permission has been made /mandatory/ ("provided" versus "however"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be retroactive, meaning images already on Commons and images taken before this change should be save. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@P199: about this "non-retroactivity," I have a hunch that some photos like File:Navarro, Drillon, Wallace - MAP 2014.jpg (by Wtmitchell, hosted on Wikimedia since August 17, 2020 first on Wikipedia then transferred by me through the FileExporter) will be among the ones affected by these "updated" provisions on the copyright and licensing status of the government works of the Philippines (dated July 3, 2020).

Another question: will this update also impact the future uploads of LGU seals? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant: the law itself is not retroactive. Obviously images uploaded after the law changed may be problematic. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

According to this Facebook post of the official account of IPOPHL, these revised rules on Copyright of Government Works, along with a few others (as stated in the post), would take effect on September 5, 2020. It also asserts that such updates on copyright rules of the Philippines are meant to "stimulating creativity and protecting the intellectual property rights." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of this as defense for copyrighted bldgs and sculptures

I can discern that one of the users here, howhantanozas, is using this "PD-PhilippinesGov" as defense in the deletion requests of bldgs and sculptures. But that is plain wrong if you might want to look closely at what constitutes not an infringement to the copyright. Philippine government works in spote of "not subsisting copyright" is not meant to be used BY ANYONE without their permission. Usage of such works also need to comply fair use, something that this wikimedia commons doesn't allow (the fair use thing).

"CHAPTER VIII.

LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT

SEC. 184. Limitations on Copyright. - 184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: ....

(h) The use made of a work by or under the direction or control of the Government, by the National Library or by educational, scientific or professional institutions where such use is in the public interest and is compatible with fair use; ...."

Wikimedia commons passes public interest but it doesnt accept fair use as jeff g one of your moderators said at village pump before.

Additionally, the government is not obliged to force the creators to waive their moral rights to them. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That clause is about the government themselves using works -- they basically give themselves an allowance for using anyone's works. And for anyone, uses which qualify for "fair use" are legal of course, though not accepted on Commons. Works where copyright does not exist are not affected by that clause, since there are no rights to base those restrictions on. Moral rights may still exist, but those are non-copyright restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

External websites tackling Philippine copyright, inc. Government works

Setting aside the new copyright rules by IPOPHL dated July 2020, I just found two websites which tackle copyright. Both from here in the Philippines. I'll quote some relevant passages involving worls of the Philippine government.

• http://www.federislaw.com.ph/faqs-resources/copyright/ (2013, from Federis & Associates Intellectual Property Firm.)

Under "What works are not protected by copyright under Philippine law?" (The author here used "unless")

4. Work of the Philippine Government, unless there was a prior approval by the appropriate government agency

• https://www.bworldonline.com/copyright-protection-over-the-works-of-the-government/ (October 15, 2019 article of the BusinessWorld, by Mary Erica D. Manuel, Associate of the Intellectual Property Department of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices or ACCRALAW)

Republic Act No. 8293, or the Philippine Intellectual Property Code IP Code, specifically states, under Section 175, that “any official text of a legislative, administrative, or legal nature” is not protected by copyright. Section 176 of the IP Code also explicitly declares that “no copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines.” However, despite these provisions generally removing works of the government from the scope of copyright protection, Section 176 allows the works of the government to be exploited for profit provided that there is prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created and that such agency or office may impose, among other things, the condition of the payment of royalties. A similar provision may be found in Title 17 of the United States Code that codified US Copyright laws.

In the dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio in the Philippine case of In re Del Castillo (2011), Mr. Carpio finds that although works of the government may not be copyrightable in general, the arrangement or presentation of passages copied from works of the government may be subject to copyright pursuant to Section 1731.1 (b) of the IP Code.

The referred section here is "SEC. 173. Derivative Works. – 173.1. The following derivative works shall also be protected by copyright:"

(b) Collections of literary, scholarly or artistic works, and compilations of data and other materials which are original by reason of the selection or coordination or arrangement of their contents. (Sec. 2, [P] and [Q], P.D. No. 49)

Paging @Howhontanozaz, Clindberg, and Psiĥedelisto: for opinion about these two extracts from two external websites. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We argued over the various clauses in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov. The law explicitly states that no copyright exists in works of their government (inherited from U.S. copyright law). But, in the 1972 law, they added a clause saying that royalties may need to be paid for commercial use of many government works. I think we determined at the time that the commercial use clause was an additional right the government gave themselves in the Philippines, so is technically a Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, though of course valid within the Philippines itself. En-wiki may have come to a different conclusion. It appears the new regulations add something which, despite no copyright existing in the Philippines, they may try to assert copyright in other countries. The U.S. legislative notes on their 1978 law say the same thing, though that was based on a U.S. Copyright Office opinion which itself was based on an interpretation of a clause of the Universal Copyright Convention, which was later discussed by other countries with many different opinions on its validity. The Copyright Office thereafter said that protection in other countries may only exist on a case-by-case basis. The U.S. has since joined the Berne Convention, so the basis for the original decision has also changed. It's very murky whether claims of copyright in other countries would be upheld -- don't think the Berne Convention requires it, since it's not protected by copyright in the source country. Whether a country would allow infringement claims anyways (from the U.S. or Philippine governments), it's anyone's guess, as we have no precedent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Not copyrighted but no approval for commercial purposes not OK

Just a heads up, our fellow Pinoy Wikipedian Higad Rail Fan attended the IPOPHL webinar on copyrights last Thursday (October 15). According to them, there was a true or false "quiz" of some sort on Google Forms, one question was "Since the government works are not protected by copyright, no approval is needed for other entities to use their work commercially." The answer to that question was "false", now indicating that even the Philippine government works are out of copyright not copyrighted [correction], it is not allowed to use these works without permission. Maybe the enwiki interpretation is the most correct after all? BTW Higad Rail Fan is planning to ask clarificatory questions to IPOPHL through email (Email: ask@ipophil.gov.ph). Paging (again?) @Howhontanozaz, Clindberg, and Psiĥedelisto: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The restriction would be very real in the Philippines, I would think. The question is can they use a "non-existent" copyright to enforce it, or is it a special thing just inside the Philippines with different penalties for violation. It's an odd bit of law, to be very sure. The question for us is if it's a copyright-based restriction, or another type of Commons:non-copyright restrictions. We host things which are protected by trademark, for example, provided we don't actually violate trademark -- the fact that such a work is here doesn't give anyone else permission to violate trademark either. We just try to make sure the copyright is OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)