User talk:Nilfanion/Israel

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some of the links added to this page are not related to the issue of Israeli copyrights, but to other issues such as the project's scope, problematic categorization implying endorsement of political views and problematic file names. If we want this page to focus on the copyright issue, it would be unwise to spread this discussion over other subjects. Drork (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is at least something that we agree on. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The primary purpose here is the copyright discussion. However, the conduct stuff is not irrelevant either (some of those pages you appear to go out of the way to attack each other). I'm more concerned about the FoP problem, and that is what I hope to help you guys sort out.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

More importantly: This dispute relates to one page. Any actual discussion of the dispute should be handled on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama - unless you guys want to do it here?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion. There is no need to have another one. Pieter Kuiper asked his questions and was properly answered. I don't know why he wants to keep debating. Maybe it's a matter of prestige to him, I don't know, and actually I don't want to know. No one here would have trusted my judgment had I offered my own interpretation to the Finnish or Swiss laws of copyrights. How come Pieter Kuiper became the final authority about Israeli law? How come Israeli users are treated as people who cannot be trusted?(Not only Deror or I, but several veteran users who commented on the issue, and gave detailed explanations.) Drork (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Well clearly the final authority on Israeli law is the Supreme court :) I can see this page has (predictably) gone back into the same circle as everything else. As I see it the whole issue has arisen because the law was left vague in certain areas, and the courts haven't yet had cases to clarify. Anyway, asked a couple questions back at CT:FOP.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of this[edit]

This page is not actually for resolving the dispute regarding FoP in Israel itself. That is a matter for Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. What this page is for is to clarify the history of the dispute itself. I'd like links to any other discussions that people here think are relevant. I also intend to make up a timeline to try and figure out what is going on here. If you guys can "agree to disagree" here, and work together to establish what has happened it will make my job easier. Thanks--Nilfanion (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For me it all started a year ago with Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Israel. But I do not think the history of the disagreement is very important. Only three weeks ago I found some statements by an acknowledged expert, which confirmed to me that I had been reading the law correctly all along. It is easier to summarize now. That is why I started working on User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel. Without polemics. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you add any other pages you feel are relevant to this page? I do not know the full history here, the more info we have, the more I (and the rest of the community) can understand the situation. As for the actual issue, given the complex nature of the debate its probably best that both you and Deror avi develop your essays to fully express your viewpoints. Obviously those views are different, but if you can both state them clearly it will help others understand.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 15#Pikiwikisrael (from June) is of interest to you. It is not directly related to the FOP issue, but it has more to do with copyright than the Latuff row. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Already found that :) The FOP issue appears to be the core of the dispute (correct me if I'm wrong). If you can think of any which I've missed please feel free to add to the page.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FoP in Israel refers to sketches and paintings of creative works as well[edit]

I've noticed the list of images you devised, and in one case it says: "not a photograph - irrelevant". The Israeli copyright statute explicitly says that making paintings, drawings, sketches etc. of works permanently displayed in public places is permitted (as well as photographing of course).

With regard to flags and emblems - the Israeli law does not say anything about their copyrights. There are symbols that are declared "protected" and there are certain regulations regarding their proper use. We can assume that the copyrights on flags and emblems belong to one of the Israeli authorities, as it is extremely unreasonable for the authorities to leave the copyrights at the hands of the designer. The State's copyrights expire after 50 years from the creation of the design in any case. Therefore, most of these designs are in the public domain with regard to copyrights. Some newer emblems might be subject to copyrights, but then again, all of them are permanently displayed in public places. You could say the the FOP tag is redundant, as flag and emblems are subject to FOP principles by definition, but that's a matter of the Commons' policy, whether to put a tag which is obvious. Drork (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Does State copyright in Israel also apply to local governments? The paragraph on State copyright in the copyright law speaks about employees of a State entity or institution, and gives policemen as an example, but the police resorts under the Interior Ministry. So it would be nice with a clear reference about the copyright on works commissioned by local councils. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked a bit further and found that the design of the flag is from a 1949 competition. So the creator must be known, and was probably not a State employee. The Jerusalem "municipal emblem was published in the official gazette (Rashumot), YP 633, 13 November 1958." Would that have given the emblem State copyright, even if it had ordinary copyright before? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Look Pieter Kuiper, data retrieval is one thing. Understanding the data is another. You can read about the Israeli flag on Wikipedia. The design is at least 100 years old. You should also know that copyrights are transferable, and in case of a competition like the one you mentioned, the designer is obligated to submit the copyrights to the state. The state cannot hold copyrights for more than 50 years. You said the Israeli statute brings a policeman as an example of a state-employee. This is wrong. The statute says that policemen and soldiers should also be regarded as state employees for copyright matters. I am not going to give you a lesson about the Israeli system of government. Local authorities are not fully autonomous in Israel, and the copyright law treats the whole government, with all its branches, as a single entity called "the State". I think you try to drag us into a whirlwind of redundant data again. You used this tactic from the very beginning. I urge you to come forth and say the truth about your motives. You are clearly not concerned with the copyright issue, otherwise you would have satisfied with our explanations ages ago. I also call upon Nilfanion to bring this discussion to an end. I think we are supplying too much food to you, and I'm not sure its in this project's best interest. Drork (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see why copyrights that the state had acquired would expire after 50 years- reference? Reference for local authorities have State copyright? But anyway, it seems that these designs get published in the Rashumot, and the best shot would probably that these are not protected according to article 6 of the copyright law, about "Official publications". Calm down Drork. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I could answer your question, but I won't. I am not your teacher of Israeli law. You should trust my good faith and believe me that I respect my country and keeps its laws. I can see you are pleased, because you think you managed to "win the game" by making me angry, and this is exactly the problem here. You are not concerned with the copyright issue or the future of the Wikimedia Commons. You are trying to take over this project, and gain a veto right for every upload, by conducting endless discussions. This is nothing but a game for you, and this game should stop right here, right now. Drork (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If they are in the public domain (due to a 50 year expiry for example) then they are in the public domain. That has nothing to do with the concept of freedom of panorama. Yes, FoP covers more than just photography - if I make a sketch of a recent building that sketch would be affected by the same FoP provisions as a photograph. The point is unclear more generally - there was discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Usin FoP to magically turn copyrighted logos free.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Example images[edit]

Now more example images were added, borderline cases, with links to complete categories where many images are certainly fine. I do not believe that these are useful for discussing typical cases. I am not going to comment on them. But there is one kind of image that I would like to see in the list of examples, some typical file from category:Stamps of Israel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the relevant samples (mozaics, frescos and doors). It is relevant to the discussion (or is it that you truely only target images of the pikiwiki project and people who oppose your opinions). Deror avi (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I refuse to do a wholesale thumbs-up or thumbs-down for "all images in Category:Upper church of the Annunciation". And I had already expressed a not-ok for a mosaic (because the 3D-aspect is not very important - a mold or a cast of the mosaic would not show much of the art). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kuiper's response to "Outside view"[edit]

In response to Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Outside view:

  1. agreed
  2. agreed
  3. agreed
  4. I do not agree that the term was meant to be ambiguous. "Applied art" is difficult to define, ranging from toys to fountains on city squares. It has a much wider range than what can be permanently situated in a public place. Tamir Afori said that typically applied art would be 3D, and that is also the logic of article 23.
  5. The authorities:
    1. I agree that Presenti seems to allow for a very wide FOP, including drawings, paintings, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, and photographic works; she gives no reference, and no reasoning as how she would defend this interpretation against objections.
    2. disagree: Tony Greenman does not indicate a wide interpretation of applied art; nothing indicates that he would include paintings in museums
    3. Tamir Afori was clear and emphatic, Drork and Deror avi openly dismiss his opinion as wrong and irrelevant; how much context do you need? Afori commented on the text in the form that was adopted.
  6. practice does not prove anything, and artists may even have been compensated by publishers.

/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to point 4: The term "applied art" (or "useful art" or whatever) is ambiguous. Some members of the legislature wanted to clarify it, but didn't for some reason. Haven't really seen evidence of case law on the definition of the term either...
As for the authorities. The single thing that has made this dispute rumble on so long and so nastily is over-reliance on single paragraphs. Dr Presenti's opinion is strongly worded. One paragraph from a book does not constitute her full opinion, but its reasonable to assume that the remainder of the pertinent chapter it is in provides the justification. This is why I asked for context for the original quote (and then deconstructed it when it was provided).
Greenman is another lovely out of context quote - I'd certainly want more (and may well re-evaluate if that's provided).
Afori, the response he gives is pretty clear. I'm aware that he has been dismissed far too readily in the debate. What is not as clear is his opinion on the law as enacted.
As for practice not proving anything I agree entirely, but if there was no evidence of practice that would indicate the reverse. What I really want to be honest is a Hebrew speaker who I trust to be neutral.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The term "applied art" is not meant to be ambiguous. It needs to be wide (maybe even an occasional 2D thing), but it should be clear that it cannot have been meant to include architecture, nor maps, nor paintings.
I also wonder if that was all that Greenman had to say in section 6.5 of his book.
Afori talked about article 23 in the exact same wording as it was enacted. Drork and Deror avi have not really disagreed with my reading of his words. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper, leave the subject. You have nothing new to say, and everything you've said has been proven wrong or irrelevant. You are not a lawyer, you are not acquainted with the Israeli legal system, stop your crusade against Israel. The parliamentary hearing's protocol which you brought us yourself indicates that the term omanut shimushit was left ambiguous deliberately. Adv. Tamir Afory implied that himself when MP Dov Hanin demanded that he introduced a clear definition of the term (Afori refused, and kindly asked Hanin to leave the matter). True, Afori expressed his opinion that omanut shimushit did not include paintings and photographs, but his opinion is not compelling whatsoever, because a remark made in a parliamentary hearing cannot be brought before a court of law as an evidence, and since a contradictory interpretation was suggested in the very same discussion by lawmaker Hanin (who is a lawyer himself).
In case the law is ambiguous, one may seek a legal advice in legal sources. Dr. Presenti's book is such a source, and she is very clear about the extent of FOP in Israel. As long as a court of law did not rule otherwise, or the Knesset changed the law, Dr. Presenti's authorized opinion is good enough for us, even if there are other opinions. In democratic countries, such as Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden etc. a prohibition must be explicit. A ban cannot be inferred from a case of doubt or disagreement.
Israeli courts of law never addressed the issue of FOP simply because no Israeli artist ever saw a reason to complain about compromising of his rights in this specific context. I sent Nilfanion several examples of 2D FOP in Israel, and the very fact that such images were published with no one complaining and no explicit prohibition in the law, is enough (beside Dr. Presenti's authorized opinion) to determine that this practice is allowed.
Would you like to keep this discussion going on forever, or can we go and deal with other important issues? Drork (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In response to Kuiper's answer above which is a response Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Outside view:
  1. agreed
  2. agreed
  3. agreed
  4. I do not agree that the term was meant to be ambiguous. It is ment to have the common Hebrew meening of the term which is "any useful art", and it is meant to include all forms of art including commercial images. The Courts have used the term in the past several times to mean 2D objects - especialy commercial which have no artistic value. In CA360/83 The Israeli Supreme Court rulled - "Useful art (אמנות שימושית) also includes art, and artwork which is ment for commercial consumption or commercial use and is entitled for pretection" - in that case the term was used in case of breach of copyight of a 2D image (a commercial). This rulling had nothing to do with FOP, but the use of the term from a picture is clear (in that case a firm highered one company to create a commercial image for it, and then sent the commecrcial image to another company to complete it, and used it without giving credit to the first comapny). Other cases such as CC(T"A)22917-03 Specificaly said that a 2D picture is "useful art".
As to the Authorities:
    1. Presenti does not "seem to allow". She clearly states that it is allowed. And she has stated it in her past book. She is the leading Israeli expert on the matter, and as for the Court's are concerned, she is the authority.
    2. Tony Greenman does not need to indicate a wide interpretation of applied art - it is the common use of the term. He clearly states that all works in the public view should remain in the public view. He does not make any comments on 2D or 3D which Kuiper is so fixed on.
    3. Tamir Afori was clear, indeed - but the MK's did not agree to his interpretation. Deror avi (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Just one point (but cannot you guys write you own statement under a new caption?): the 2D stuff that a court assigned in the somewhat elastic category of "applied art" was artwork meant for commercial consumption or commercial use. In German courts this kind of stuff may be called Gebrauchsgrafik. Such court decisions cannot be used to extend "applied art" to portrait paintings or fine art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not know the Germen Law, nor pretand to know it. I have said before that there are no Court rullings on the FOP clause of both the old Law and the new Law. Howevere the Court did address the issue of news and documentary photography and stated it is "useful art". In view of this there should be no 2D 3D distinction. Also - with regards to the Bern convention - view it this way - any person donating a fine art painting to a museum in Israel, or any artist drawing a mural in Israel, knows the Law, and in fact waives his rights (not the credit rights, just the copyrights). So it is not in any contradiction with the Bern convention. Deror avi (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It is rarely the painter who is the donor. For example, an Israeli museum may acquire a print made by Picasso. Without the estate waiving its rights. This is why also the Israel Museum has its copyright management department. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Again - you are wrong - when the museum purchases the picture by Picaso (just as the case of purchasing a statue - there is no deference)- he purchases the rights (and sell the image on postcards and posters). The donor is usually the owner of the rights (whether it is a private donour, the french or catalan government, or any musuem). Its copyright management department does that (and also takes strict measures not to allow photography in the muesum- otherwise, just as Presanti said - the images will be free. Deror avi (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The head of the Israel Museum's copyright department was at the parliamentary hearing too and we had a long conversation after the hearing. We discussed possible cooperation between the Museum and Wikimedia Israel, but she also told me about her job. The Israel Museum possesses copyrighted and non-copyrighted material of different sorts. In order to protect its commercial rights and income sources there are all kinds of measures to prevent photography or sketching inside the Museum. However, as Deror said before, this is done by technical measures and warnings of contractual nature. It does not mean that the photographs themselves, if taken after all, are copyrighted. Drork (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to the dispute about point 4 (that the law is ambiguous): I'd point out that both sides of this dispute agree that the law is clear. However, you cannot agree as to what that clear meaning is. Therefore calling it "ambiguous" is a true reflection of the dispute, there are two distinct "clear" interpretations. I'd also ask you not to continue to discuss the existing material we have for the time being. Its pretty obvious that your views are set and discussing the material we have will not change any of your opinions. Continued discussion of that will not do anything but raise tempers again IMO. On the other hand, please hunt out new information. I've provided a couple examples on CT:FOP I'd like to see - more info from both Presenti and Greenman, I'm sure there is more relevant stuff. That new information would be more useful to resolving this than rehashing the same debate again.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to your statement: "The actual law is not clear," although it would have been better to say that it "interpreted in different ways" or something like that. But what I object to is your next formulation: "Apparently this was a deliberate decision." There is no basis for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nilfanion, the subject is closed. We cannot waste anymore time on this. We provided all required information with detailed explanations. The Israeli law permits 2D FoP until further notice. If there is a change in local law we will inform the Commons, as we normally do. With all due respect, you request to hunt more information means questioning Deror's integrity as well as mine, and assuming we do not have other things to take care of. Drork (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What I've been trying to do here is help the people involved in this reach a resolution that is acceptable to all involved, not just one "side" or the other. You can participate in further discussion here or not, but the matter needs resolving and is not settled at this time. A request for further information is not an attack on you or Deror, its just that I believe if we have more information provided everyone involved will be able to better able to interpret the facts. You can choose to search for that info or not, its your choice not mine after all. I won't hold it against you if you don't do that research but I would appreciate it if you did.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
No one in the Commons has ever asked for so much information about an issue related to a certain local law. The current policy is to accept the opinion of those who live in the relevant country and know the local law and common practice. The Israeli users have been asked and they gave the most ellaborated and educated answer ever given in this project, including appropriate references to relevant authorized resources. The fact that Pieter Kuiper does not accept it, is not related to the quality of the answer or to its credability, but to his personal resentment against the Israeli users. It might sound crazy, but this is the only possible explanation to his behavior. The fact that you cooperate with his method of raising endless unreasonable doubts in order to exhaust his "enemies", is very regrettable. If you think the Israeli users here act in bad faith and try to mislead the Commons' users, please say so explicitly and do not drag this debate any further. If you don't think so, please accept our very reasoned and ellaborated explanations and end this discussion. Drork (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am still looking, although searching Hebrew sites is difficult for me. But here is an interesting case. A summary in English is here. An Israeli photographer is suing the Norwegian Mint over a medal depicting Yitzak Rabin. The medal maker does not invoke FOP, although the photograph was publicly displayed. The medal is shown here. Maybe this was the logo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A completely irrelevent case - as one who reads the full judgement can see - (but also the partial section shows this). The image was never permenantly in a public place, so it has nothing to do with Section 23 of the Law (or the previous section). Anyhow - it was appealed to the Supereme Court and the appeal is pending. It deals with the question whether a news photography can be copyrighted. I think it can and the lower Court is correct. Otherwise - all newspaper photographs will not be copyrighted. Deror avi (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)