User:Kameraad Pjotr/Cases/Talk:Freedom of Panorama/181209

Israel painting

Israel painting, June 2009

Deror now added the following to COM:FOP#Israel: "The term "applied art" (אמנות שימושית) is not defined by the Law and have not been treated by the Courts, however it arrises from the previous 1911 Law. Previous scholars have delt with this term and gave as an example artwork hung in museums (i.e. 2D art displayed in a public place)."

This is rather imprecise, and I doubt that it is true. The old 1911 British Mandate FoP would have been similar to {{FoP-UK}}. The new 2007 Law says in its definitions that artistic works (יציר אמנותית, work of art) include "including, drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works, photographic works and works of applied art" (יצירת אמנות שימושית, useful work of art); clearly these are different categories of works. Of these different categories, the 2007 FoP provision exempts only "architectural work, a work of sculpture, or work of applied art" when permanently situated in a public space, but drawings, paintings, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, and photographic works are not exempted. I will revert the addition. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you should address your complaints to the Israeli parliament, not to us. We are acting according to the existing law and authorized interpretation. If you think the Israeli law should be phrased in a better way, I you may visit the website of the Israeli parliament and tell the members they don't do their work properly. For the time being, Deror who is an Israeli lawyer gave you a perfect answer to your doubt, and another lawyer who is an expert in this issue, backs his opinion. What else do you want? Drork (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Another important remark - none of the Israeli statutes is a British statute. The judicial systems split on the 15th of May 1948. Israel has decided to retain legal status quo, but its courts of law are not obligated to any interpretation made by the British courts of law. The idea that what is legal in the UK is also legal in Israel is simply wrong. Drork (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Courts rulled in 1985 that freedom of Panorma as defined by the 1911 Law applies to 2D. In 2007 the legislator did change the phrasing to a more modern term - but the term has the same meening the the legislator specificaly stated that it does not intend to change the status quo with regards to FOP (there is a small change which is irrelevent to this discussion and deals with photography of statues that are on private property from outside that property - but as I said, this is irrelvent to the question at hand). Deror avi (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please give a reference to that 1985 case. According to a reply by Doron Sieradzky, Israeli courts used to follow English precedents in copyright law. Sieradzky says that in 1980 the Knesset spoke out against this, but that judges continued to do this. And the 2007 Law is roughly in accordance with UK-FoP, which I suspect was status quo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Courts also check Canadian, US, French an German precedeints. UK precendents do not apply at all with regards to Contract Laws (which are based on the BGB). In this case there are rulings with regards to these terms - which are not based on UK law. Deror avi (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So Bundesgesetzbuch for contract law, UK precedents for copyright law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It is much more complicate. Only Israeli Supreme Court's ruling are binding. When interpreting terms, one should check the origin of the Law, but always (according to the 1980 Law [1]) first comes the presedents of the Israeli Court, then the Hebrew Law (the religious Law) and only then the origin Law - in any case - according to Secion 2 of the said Law - UK law is not binding with regards to the 1911 Copyright Law. In this case there are rulings with regards to these terms - which are not based on UK law.

The rullings with regards to the terms are: OM 9496/91, bubbles inc.s.a.1the roy export company establishment v. Rivlin; CA 513/89 LINES BROS. S.A-EXIN v' S/INTERLEGO A; RCA 2687/92 Dudu Geva. In these the court rulled what is "מלאכת אמנות" (which is in modern hebrew "אמנות שימושית"). In all these cases - the work was 2D, there was also one case which delt with toy cubes - but that is not relevant here (also in all these cases the work was not in the public domain, and therefore not FOP). Deror avi (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if some 2D designs can be included in "applied art", that does not mean that that any painting is applied art. The parties in these copyright cases were companies, and I guess that the lawsuits were about mass produced goods. But it does not seem right to extend such rulings to a unique portrait or to maps displayed on signs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understant on what do you base your incorrect statement (especially if you have not read the rullings). According the Presenti's book it applies to drawings hung in a museum, and the court specifically ruled with regards to signs. Deror avi (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is annoyingly imprecise. Which case was about signs? Were the signs being infringed upon or were the signs the infringement? Anyway, I had missed that en:Dudu Geva was a cartoonist who was being sued by Disney for infringement on Donald Duck. Disney won. I do not see how the case is relevant here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The signs were being infringed upon and in the Geva case an interpretation of the meening of "applied art" by the Court is mentioned - the infringment is by a drawing of a duck. The drawing of a duck is "applied art" and infringes the rights of Disney. So what if Disney won. the Court specificaly said that "עיצוב הדמות ואיפיונה המיוחד מהווים כשלעצמם "מלאכת אמנות"; אלה באים לידי ביטוי ויזואלי, באופן הנכלל בקטיגוריות של "ציור" או "שרטוט". יצוין, כי בסופו של דבר ההבחנה בין רובדי היצירה בהקשר זה איננה חדה, באשר עיצוב הדמות ואיפיונה מוגדרים באמצעות השרטוט הגראפי וההנפשה (האנימציה)."

Even a 0D artwork (a concept) may be "applied art" such as the distinct walk cloathing, and standing position of Charlie Chaplin: "דמות מיוחדת כזו היא "מלאכת אמנות ", כהגדרתה בסעיף 35 (1) לחוק זכות יוצרים ". Deror avi (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How on earth Geva's case became relevant here? Geva wanted to incorporate Donald Duck into one of his comics books. The court said he may not do that because Donald Duck is copyright protected. This has nothing to do with FOP. BTW, don't you want to come to Israel? We have sandy beaches, a lot of sunshine, and full Freedom of Panorama. A Wikimedian paradise. Drork (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It is relevent because it is one of the few places where the Court delt with a definition of "מלאכת אמנות" ("arts and crafts" or "usefull art"). 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork is right, all this lawyering is not relevant. It comes as no great surprise that Israeli courts would consider Lego construction toys (the Interlego case) or Disney characters (the Geva case) as "applied art". They are seen as artistic works that are not paintings, lithographies or sculptures, so they end up in the elastic category of "useful art". These cases have no bearing on freedom of panorama. Summarizing: according to a straight reading of the new law, paintings are not exempted by FoP. The new law was not supposed to be a change in FoP, and indeed, the simple reading matches the English interpretation of the 1911 Mandate Law. Deror has not given a basis in law for his addition. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As detailed before Pieter Kuiper is not a Hebrew speaker, have no knowedge of Israeli Law nor UK law, and has no understanding of rules of interpretation of Israeli Law wharsoever.

I do not understand on what he bases his above summery (he brings no information in support of his odd opinion). According to the 1911 Law, and based on UK cases (such as the Hensher case) which stated that stain glass windows is FOP, and this has also been applied to frescos. The only remaining question is paintings hung in a museum and as to that it has been stated clearly by Presenty that: "מקום ציבורי שהמבקר בו נכנס אליו תמורת תשלום או הרשאה לדוגמא מוזיאון רשאי בעליו להגביל את הצילום או ההעתקה של היצירות שמוצגות בו. העובר על הגבלה זו מפר הסכם בינו לבין בעל המקרקעין או בעל זכות היוצרים אך אינו מפר זכות יוצרים ביצירה. גם העותקים שיצר אינם עותקים מפרים. התרופות שיעמדו לבעל המקרקעין או בעל זכות היוצרים הן תרופות בגין הפרת חוזה". The 2007 Law did not change any of that. The interpretation of the term is simple, and I have no doubt that Paintings ("ציורים") are indeed "אמנות שימושית" based on all the tests used in Court rullings, and based on the definition of "מלאכת אמנות" in the Gevah and other above cases (which I am sure Pieter Kuiper have neither read nor understood - because should you have read or understood them, you would not say it is irrelevant).

To sum up - until the Supreme Court of Israel declairs otherwise, or until the Law is changed, FOB does include all works of usefull art (which is any object done with artistic craftsmanship, even if mass produces, and of course include 2D objects such as paintings), if it is permenantly places (according to the intension of the placer) in a public place (as accepted by the Israeli Courts - which may include malls and private cemetaries). Deror avi (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote in Hebrew seems to say that a museum may limit photography on its premises, but that such a restriction is not a copyright restriction. The quote does not mention paintings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your tanslation is inaccurate (are you using google translator?). Deror avi (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

According the Presenti's book it applies to drawings hung in a museum, and the court specifically ruled with regards to signs. Deror avi (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC) - - > Could you please provide one or two quotes from that book (with English translation, if it is an Hebrew book) and full book references (i.e. full writer's name, book title, book publisher, page numbers) ? Teofilo (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote is translated above. it is on page 934 - 935 ofDr. Sarah Presenti's book "Copyright and neighbouring rights", published in Hebrew, in Tel Aviv 2000. Also in Tony Greenman's book "זכויות יוצרים, אמנים ומפיקים" in page 85.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deror avi (talk • contribs) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel painting, July 2009

I am Sorry, but this is a long discussion page, and I can't see exactly where this quote is provided and where its translation is provided. All I can see is the quote "מקום ציבורי שהמבקר בו נכנס אליו תמורת תשלום או הרשאה לדוגמא מוזיאון רשאי בעליו להגביל את הצילום או ההעתקה של היצירות שמוצגות בו. העובר על הגבלה זו מפר הסכם בינו לבין בעל המקרקעין או בעל זכות היוצרים אך אינו מפר זכות יוצרים ביצירה. גם העותקים שיצר אינם עותקים מפרים. התרופות שיעמדו לבעל המקרקעין או בעל זכות היוצרים הן תרופות בגין הפרת חוזה" provided by you without page numbers or book title, and no English translation. Pieter Kuipers provides some sort of translation, but you opine that his translation "is inaccurate". If you keep your opinion that Pieter's translation is inacurate, can you please provide an alternative English translation, which you would approve as being "accurate" ? Teofilo (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The quote is translated above. it is on page 934 - 935 ofDr. Sarah Presenti's book "Copyright and neighbouring rights", published in Hebrew, in Tel Aviv 2000. The quite says that a museum for example, may limit the photography therein only on contractual basis and not on copyright law (due to the exclusion in the law for work permenantly hung in public place). Deror avi (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Deror Avi has so far not shown that FOP in Israel also is for paintings. I will again remove this from the project page when decent translations of Hebrew quotes are not supplied. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I, as a Hebrew speaker, believe that the above parograph is a decent translation of the above. If Pieter Kuiper belives otherwise, he should state why (and based on what). In my personal opinion this is another bad faith attempt of him to cause damage to the Wikimedia foundation and its projects. Deror avi (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on the Hebrew Wikipedia's Village Pump. Hopefully someone will provide translation help. Teofilo (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From Hebrew Wikipedia, here I come. A translation of:

מקום ציבורי שהמבקר בו נכנס אליו תמורת תשלום או הרשאה לדוגמא מוזיאון רשאי בעליו להגביל את הצילום או ההעתקה של היצירות שמוצגות בו. העובר על הגבלה זו מפר הסכם בינו לבין בעל המקרקעין או בעל זכות היוצרים אך אינו מפר זכות יוצרים ביצירה. גם העותקים שיצר אינם עותקים מפרים. התרופות שיעמדו לבעל המקרקעין או בעל זכות היוצרים הן תרופות בגין הפרת חוזה

is:

"A public place that a visitor enters in exchange for payment or authorization, for instance a museum, may restrict photography or copying of works displayed in it. A person breaking this restriction is breaking an agreement between him and the owner of the property (meaning the physical place, i.e. museum. okedem) or copyright holder, but is not infringing on the work's copyright. The copies he created are also not infringing. The remedies available to the property owner or copyright holder are the remedies for breaking a contract."

So a person photographing some work in a museum where photography is prohibited is breaking a civil contract, but the copies he made are perfectly legitimate. Where photography is not prohibited, there no issue at all. Okedem (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! So the quote does not mention paintings, and it does not say anything about paintings being exempted from copyright protection by the FOP-provision. It is my impression that this text presupposes museums with old stuff: archeology, old tools and statues, PD-old paintings, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a far-fetched interpretation. The text clearly speaks of a "copyright holder", which does not exist for the items you mention - thus, the text deals with copyright-protected works. It clearly speaks of "works", which includes paintings, photos, etc. Don't twist the words, please. Okedem (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Okedem. It is very nice of you to come for help so quickly. To Deror Avi : this text means several things. One of the things meant by the author could be : if the artist is your friend and says "OK you can take a picture of my work, and put the picture on your website or Wikipedia", from a copyright point of view, you can take a photograph because the artist said "OK", but if the work happens to be located in a museum, you must still ask the permission from the museum if the museum has rules concerning the taking of photographs. You need two permissions : the permission of the artist and the permission of the museum. Teofilo (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that the book is a book relating to copyright law, and the relevant chapter is the one regarding FOP in Israel, and with this regard, as I said - it is not a questions of copyright (only of contract infringment), which is irrelevent to the commons. Deror avi (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Wow that really does sound like Israel does essentially have FOP for paintings. The contractual situation between the uploader and the museum/other establishment is between them, and would not cause Commons to delete it. The uploader would take whatever contractual risk exists, but if they want to upload it, the copyright part sounds OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#.22House_rules.22. In most places, "house rules" like museum no photography rules are civil contracts that affect only the photographer and not the photo. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If Sarah Presenti wrote a whole chapter on Freedom of Panorama it would be more interesting to focus on her comments on copyright law than her comments on contract law, because our main concern on Wikimedia commons is copyright law. Does she refer to specific articles of the copyright law of Israel ? Which article numbers ? Does she give a definition of "works of applied art" ? The copyright act of 2007 of Israel includes the following definition in article 1 : In this Act [...] "Artistic work" – including, drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works, photographic works and works of applied art; (source). So it is very clear from the start that in the Israeli law "paintings" and "works of applied art" are two different things. Thus it is very clear that the "works of applied art" mentioned in article 23 of the law : "Broadcast or copying of work in public place", do not include paintings. Teofilo (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

no it is not - one can include the other - I have answerd this questions several times befor above. This is not how laws are interpreted. Basicly the 2007 law did not change anything with this regards, and the interpretation of 1911 still applies. "works of applied art" is modern Hebrew for "arts and crafts" which includes any useful object which is a work of art - for example - a window is a usefall obeject that is not a work of art but stained glass is` a floor is not but a mosaic is etc. A palin carpet is not but a hanging painted carpet is. The chapter deals with the questions of what is "Public domain" and what is "permenantly placed" - with regards to images in museums - the above quote is very clear - no copyright probles just contractual ones (usually museums in Israel forbid photography). Deror avi (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In none of the countries of the Commonwealth where the 1911 law was in force, paintings are covered by FOP. The British Mandate had the same law texts, and until 2007 also Israel did. Your interpretation is out of line with everybody else's. Of course it is possible that Israeli courts ruled differently, but it would have been noticed in the literature. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"it would have been noticed in the literature" - see Prezanti's book. OK. There was never a copyright claim filed in Israel against someone who took an image of a picture hung in a public place - so there are no court rulling. Once a claim was filed against a person who took a picture of a statue in a gallerie, and the Court rulled that it was a breach of copyright as it was a temporary exhibition. Numerious copyright claims are filed every year, and numerous rullings are published yearly on copyright issues so it is not a questions of lack of claims but rather a fact that something is possible. Unless the Supreme Court rulles otherwise (Magistrate and Distrcit Court are not binding precedents) or a new anactment is made - that is the current law. Deror avi (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of lawsuits is nore likely due to professional publishers paying royalties to copyright holders, and to the fact that there is no collection agency in Israel for visual art. It does not say anything about the law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No. As usuall. you are completely wrong. Deror avi (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No progress on Israeli FoP at the Village Pump

Teofilo brought the lack of evidence for "useful art = anything commons can use" to the Village Pump archived here. And as usual, the response by Deror avi is mostly rethoric. I will remove the unsupported phrase again from the project page. It is not grammatical anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Two Israeli Lawyers who understand the law state it is correct. Why dont you stop arguing on a subject you have no understandig of and in a langauge you now nothing about. Deror avi (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Language does not matter. The mandate law was in English, and everybody seems to agree that the 2007 law did not materially change rules for FoP. You are drawing on a single phrase in Presenti's book on copyright, which is dealing with the text of the English law. The quote you gave does not support your phrase: "According to Dr Presently, the leading Israeli Copyright Scholar, this term applies to all works of art displayed permenantly in public, including any artwork hung permenantly in museums." That is why it is better to attribute that opinion to you. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Israeli Law is interpreted according to the Hebrew Version of the Law since 2008, and according to Israeli interpretation principles since 1980. Presanti deals with the the Law and states that there is no copyright issue in derivative work if artwork in museums if it is premenantly hung there - any artwork including pictures. The Law is simple and should be interreted accordingly. By the way - according to the UK Court precedents Stained glass windows are free. Today, in israel, any useful object (no matter what it is) that has artwork on it - is free if permenantly in a public place. Deror avi (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remind us - what year wrote Presenti that phrase that you rely on? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Presanty wrote her book in 2000 and she delt with the 1911 version of the Law. The 2008 Law is even clearer. Deror avi (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait. A museum is considered a public place in Israel and therefore any work contained is public domain. I cannot believe that is what the law says. Nobody would ever exhibit their work in an Israeli museum if this were the case. I think we need to reread exactly what is said. --Bastique ^demandez 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the way it is. That is why museums forbid photography (which is a contractual agreement with the visitor - when a visitor enters a museum he contractual agrees not to take pictures - and there are personal in each room forbiding taking pictures. Of course -there are some museums which allow photography) - because otherwise the would take the derivative pictures which will be free. Deror avi (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is - for the past 50 years hundrds of thousands of pictures were taken of 2D objects in public places and never a claim was filed at court, while in fact hundred of copyright claims are filed each year (many against internet sites). A claim has never been filed - because the law is understood by all. Deror avi (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahem... who in hell is "Dr Presently, the leading Israeli Copyright Scholar"??? Lupo 21:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see... a typo. Well, what's her name? Presanty, Presanti, Presently? Lupo 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Presenti, http://www.presentilaw.com/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A museum is also considered a public place in the UK, and any photographs of permanent exhibits of 3-D artwork there are not considered derivative works (even if the original work is still under copyright). So, that same concept exists other places too -- yet artists, I'm sure, still do exhibit 3-D works in museums there. The Israeli law is based on the 1911 UK law, but the question is mainly if this same concept under Israeli practice has morphed to include photographs of 2-D works as well, which is generally not the case for countries based on the UK laws, but it is always possible that Israel is different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never met Dr. Presenti, but I have studied in detail copyright Law in the university (my LLM is in Comparative Constitutional Law, but as part of my LLB studies I took many courses in copyright law) and Presenti is considered the no. 1 expert in Copyright Law in Israel (the other experts are Prof. Birnhak (בירנהק) and Adv. Grinman (טוני גרינמן). From my experiance at the Courts (during internship), the justices look at Dr. Presenti's book when giving judgements with regards to Copyright Law. Deror avi (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely courts would look at the law first. Presenti does not say what you claim she says. The quote as translated by User:Okedem here makes perfect sense when applying it to sculptures in museums for which there is FoP or to old paintings. For your reading, however, there is no basis in law, nor in court decisions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

When reading Presenti you should note that she speaks of all works displayed in a museum - not just statues. And you should also take into account that most art museums in Israel display mostly paintings (and few scalptures). Deror avi (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes scholars go over fuzzy legal ground before courts do... someone like w:Melville Nimmer was (and still is) *widely* quoted in legal decisions. Obviously, nobody really knows until those areas are actually tested in a court case and precedents get set, but it is at least possible. I have no real knowledge of the Israel situation whatsoever, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I promised myself I won't get into such a discussion ever again, but things are getting a little bit out of hand here. Let me make some simple and (hopefully) useful points to end this saga, starting with the most important one:

1. Find an experienced arbitrator - In order to avoid any bias that might result from personal relations or possibly polemic attitude, I suggest handing this problem over to someone who hasn't been part of this debate, preferably someone with relevant experience.
2. This is not about Israel - Bear in mind that this problem could, and most probably will, pop up again with regard to another country or territory. Therefore we might as well think of the principles here rather than about Israel. Israel became the focus of this debate because it has a huge number of interesting sites to document, a very enthusiastic Wikimedian community, comparatively lax copyright regulations, a distinct language and no federative connections to other legal systems. We will encounter this problem again once Wikimedian communities in other interesting non-European non-N.American countries develop.
3. Some of the principle issues to be considered - (i) Do Wikimedia Projects respect any local law, or are there cases in which certain aspects of local laws are disregarded in order to conform with US/EU/WIPO norms? (ii) What kind of proofs should one supply in order to assert that a certain thing is legal in his locale? To what extent can another person challenge these proofs? (iii) Obviously, this is not the right place to conduct legal debates. Also, the old rule of "when in doubt do without" doesn't apply here, because the doubt here relates to too much material and it is not strong enough. Whom do this community turns to when it need to resolve such an issue? Drork (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems the only arbitrator acceptible to Drork would be an Israeli expert on copyright. Maybe wikimedia can pay for an opinion by Sarah Presenti? If that would cost too much, I suggest someone from an Israeli artist's rights organization. Israel does not seem to have a collection agency for visual artists, but maybe someone at Eshkolot could be accepted as qualified? They certainly could say something about Deror avi's bootleg recording of Dana International (an obvious case, I thought, but has been open for four weeks now). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, since it is so important to you, you might as well visit Israel and ask to hire an expert lawyer yourself. It is not that cheap, but I suppose you can afford it. This way you won't have to trust our word, but can see the situation in Israel with your own eyes, and choose a local lawyer whom you trust. Had I been bothered by a similar problem regarding Sweden or the Netherlands, that would probably be my way of solving the problems, if I couldn't trust any Swedish or Dutch person available around me. In any event, it is very unethical to throw the costs at another person or organization in such a case where you are the only person who is not comfortable with the current situation. Had you read my comment, you would have seen that to the best of MY JUDGMENT the issue was not an Israeli issue, nor is it entirely legal issue. I was urging those people who see themselves responsible to declare a clear policy about how to treat local laws which do not fully align with European/N.American laws, and what kind of documents they want to see in order to learn about what a local law permits. This is my last comment here, and I am sorry to see that you did not read my previous one, and merely used the occasion to prolong this discussion in order to doubt the integrity of other users. Drork (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Presently

User:Deror avi reverted my deletion of: " According to Dr Presently, the leading Israeli Copyright Scholar, this term applies to all works of art displayed permenantly in public, including any artwork hung permenantly in museums."
However, there is no direct quote that supports this statement. It is Deror avi's very personal interpretation. His interpretations of other juridical texts have been shown to be wrong (see here). Deror avi takes words out of context. His quote is also extremely careless - he cannot even get the name right of the person that he refers to as his authority. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been shown in the past the Pieter Kuiper's interpretation of Israeli Law is based on his personal bias against Israeli pictures. Dr. Presenti in her book states: "מקום ציבורי שהמבקר בו נכנס אליו תמורת תשלום או הרשאה לדוגמא מוזיאון רשאי בעליו להגביל את הצילום או ההעתקה של היצירות שמוצגות בו. העובר על הגבלה זו מפר הסכם בינו לבין בעל המקרקעין או בעל זכות היוצרים אך אינו מפר זכות יוצרים ביצירה. גם העותקים שיצר אינם עותקים מפרים." - which was translated above but the main point is the ending that anybody who makes a copy of any artwork in a museum is "not in breach of copyright". It has been stated before the Kuiper can not read Hebrew and has a personal animocity against me - that's why he is refaring to the Berlin discussion, which is based on the commons guidelines up to that discussion. I am an Israeli Lawyer not a German one - and prior to that descussion re the Berlin work the guildines here were not clear. As to the Israeli Law - nothing has been changed in the past six month Pieter has been targeting his attack and there is no reason to change the guidlines with reagrds to Israel now.Deror avi (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deror avi finally gets the name right, and probably the Hebrew quote, but when one compares his paraphrase with the translation given by Okedem, it is clear that Deror avi's rendering is grossly misleading (maybe he is misleading himself). Deror avi has been trying to pull this off for the last six months, but his way of responding to the Jewish Museum DR shows that his lawyering cannot be relied upon. There is no basis in Presenti's writings for the statement he ascribes to her in COM:FOP#Israel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Kiuper has shown in the past that his agenda is not the best interest of the commons. I urge other user to reread Ofer Kedem's above statment and see that I am correct. I do not expect Pieter who is known of his anti-israel bias and his attacks on Israeli projects (such as the piki wiki) to change his mind. Deror avi (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with a rather rudimentary command of the English language can read both my translation, and Deror Avi's comment, and see they are wholly compatible. As Mr. Kuiper's continues to make obviously false claims, I suggest he simply be ignored, having proven he either cannot understand the text, or doesn't want to. Okedem (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It would require a lot of fantasy to deduct from Okedem's translation that Presenti states that the term "usefull art" (אמנות שימושית) applies to all works in museums. She does not say that, and such a statement just does not make sense. It is an insolence that COM:FOP attributes such nonsense to her. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We know you can not read Hebrew. Re read the English translation. Presanty states that "all works in a museum" are not copyrighted (provided that it is permenantly displayed). I am sure you are aware of this, but I want to remind you - a drawing, a painting, a statue, a photograph are all works of art. Maybe sometimes when you have free time you should go to a museum and see what is displayed there. Deror avi (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Israel FOP unclear

With this edit I changed the OK mark to a question mark at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Israel for two reasons: I see there is a dispute on its precise meaning on this talk page, and I as a native English speaker do not fully understand what it intends to mean. Note I am completely ignorant regarding Israel law, so below I explain my current understanding in order to determine how a user might decide whether any one image is Ok or not Ok for Commons purposes.

Here are the clear and unclear parts, separated out in italics with my understanding of each in plaintext. Maybe the disputed parts ("applied" and "public"?) could be marked as such?

The reproduction of this artistic, architectural, or applied artwork,

To me this includes a painting, wall mosaic, building, bridge, or sculpture.

applied artwork is difficult: it appears to mean art put to some practical use. What could that be? It could also mean artwork "applied" to a surface, as in a fresco on a wall or ceiling or a mosaic on a floor.

is covered under the Israeli copyright statute (2007), which states that

"Broadcasting, or copying by way of photography, drawing, sketch or similar visual description, of

an architectural work,

To me this includes a building, bridge or other permanently fixed structure (a tower for example).

a work of sculpture

To me this means anything sculpted.

or work of applied art,

applied art remains unclear until its meaning is better defined.

are permitted if that work is permanently placed

I understand this as meaning permanently fixed to the ground or to some permanently fixed structure (a building, wall, bridge or tower (street furniture maybe). Not a painting hung on a wall, not a picture on a movable vehicle, not a flag on a flagpole.

in a public place." (paragraph 23)

public place is open to interpretation. Does it exclude the inside of private buildings requiring a ticket or other permission? Include the forecourts of hotels? Inside churches?

I then looked at some images which have the template {{FoP-Israel}}.

• File:Holon Twin cities.JPG is a set of solid plaques fixed to the ground. OK to me.
• File:Akko IDF memorial 01.JPG shows some arches and other architecture in an open-topped structure. OK, assuming it is public.
• File:Moshe Feiglin Poster.jpg is a poster on a bus.  Not OK because it is not "permanently placed".
• File:Drawing in Domus Galilaeae church.jpg looks like a painting fixed to a wall.  Not OK because it is not "permanently placed" - it could be removed, it is not "applied" to the wall.
• File:Domus Galilaeae mural and table.jpg shows a large mural, which other images from [2] convince me is permanently applied to the wall behind. However, I would not like to judge whether it is a public place; I have always treated churches, chapels and such meeting places in Europe as not public, so or  Not OK.
• File:Rotshield balcony statues.jpg are statues on a balcony. If they are firmly fixed there, I would say OK.
• File:Denmark Square 1.jpg shows three plaques with a memorial inscription on each in three languages. Look fixed and in public so probably Ok (I am always unsure about the copyright of text seen in public).
• File:Arad Flag.jpg is a flag on a pole. Does not look "permanently placed" at all, but are flags covered by a different license? If not this looks like  Not OK.

That's as far as I looked. Are these more or less correct interpretations of the Israel-FOP? -84user (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli copyright law is (strongly) based on the UK Copyright Act of 1911, which has pretty much the same FOP rules as today's UK law. In general, that law allows photography of 3-D works but generally not 2-D, and unlike many countries it does allow them in places open to the public such as museums (so museum exhibits are usually "permanent"). "Applied art" is usually meant as something distinct from "fine art"; it usually implies some utilitarian aspect but can also apply to many posters, etc. One example would be ornate decorations on fences. See w:Applied art. The UK law doesn't use that term, but rather "works of artistic craftsmanship" which exludes 2-D works according to their definitions. That is the crux of the argument above; some are arguing that Israeli practice has evolved in practice to allow photography of permanently placed 2-D works, even things like paintings (which are usually not applied art). So... I don't think you are going down the right path with some of your interpretations, but some of them may well be issues for other reasons. For example, the poster may well be considered permanently placed on the (public) bus -- but it contains a photograph itself, so it probably wouldn't count as "applied art". In general, Israel most certainly has FOP; the questions are to what extent it is beyond the UK definitions (if at all). I would restore the OK checkmark. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In Israel the term is "Usefull art" "אמנות שימושית" and not "applied art" and therefor any useful object (including 2D objects) that has artistic value are free. A cup is usufull, a cup with a drowing is useful art. And so are pictures and statues (aorks of art that are usefull) see a paragraph above - Dr. Presanti's book.

Therefore:

• File:Holon Twin cities.JPG - artwork, useful, permenantly displayed. OK .
• File:Akko IDF memorial 01.JPG artwork, useful, permenantly displayed. OK .
• File:Moshe Feiglin Poster.jpg is a poster on a bus.  Not OK because it is not "permanently placed".
• File:Drawing in Domus Galilaeae church.jpg artwork, useful, permenantly displayed. OK .
• File:Domus Galilaeae mural and table.jpg artwork, useful, permenantly displayed. OK (I have before explain and gave Court rullings - churches are public locations in Israel).
• File:Rotshield balcony statues.jpg artwork, useful, permenantly displayed. OK .
• File:Denmark Square 1.jpg useful - a plack, but not artwork (what's artisitic about text), permenantly displayed. Template:Not Ok .
• File:Arad Flag.jpg artwork, useful, permenantly displayed. OK .

To sum up - all usefull art (including all displays in museum whether 2D or 3D, as can be seen from the paragraph above where Dr. Presanti's book is delt with (the leading authority on the matter in Israel), if permenantly displayed is FOP. This includes murals, pictures, mosaics etc. Deror avi (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I could see "useful art" as a similar translation translation to "applied art" -- the latter generally refers to artistic twists on useful/utilitarian items as opposed to a piece of art made for art's sake. The English translation the Israeli provided to WIPO (the only version they submitted) is here; they use the term "applied art" -- so that would seem to be a very legitimate translation. In addition, the definition of "artistic work" in that translation defines "applied art" as something different than drawings, photographs, paintings, engravings, lithographs, maps, and charts (and sculptures etc.). Does the Hebrew version define artistic work the same way? I.e. by a list of types of works, with "useful art" being mentioned separately from those others? That would imply that all those other types of works are not useful art. But, "applied art" can mean certain types of 2-D work, more than the UK law does, so there may be some additional items covered which were not before. They don't define "public place" either, though the previous law had "in a public place, or building" in its FOP provision so historically it did encompass indoor public areas. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you got the main points (but there are some ina curacies). The term "useful art" - "אמנות שימושית" is not defined in the Law. (It is not "applied art" - "אמנות יישומית". Just to point that English is not an official language in Israel and therefore there is no official translation to English of the Laws). The Court delt with some aspects of the term (and rulled for example that even a 0D object such as a concept may be applied art) but never gave a definition. Just wish to point that there is no one definition for "public place" and various court rulling stated that for example churches (and other places of worship), schools, cemetaries and malls are public places (for various puroposes). Deror avi (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, only the Hebrew version is official. Thus my one question above... the English version does have a definition of artistic work in section 1, so I assume the Hebrew version does too. In the Hebrew version, in its list of types of works, does it use the Hebrew term for "applied art" or does it use the same "useful art" term which is later used in section 23? If it is the same term as section 23, then even though the law may explicitly define "useful art", it would at least define what "useful art" is not (i.e. all the other types listed there). That would be like the UK "works of artistic craftsmanship"; that is not explicitly defined there either but it is at least something other than a "graphic work" (which is defined) plus some other types. Israeli law used to have basically the exact same wording (since it started out as the 1911 UK law). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the same term but you are incorrect in your interpretation as it is the last item on the list and therefore may include all the previous ones (it is the "Basket term" - "מונח סל"). For example The Passover Law (חוק חג המצות) defines "leavened breads" as "bread, bun, Pitah, any flour product" - where the last definition inclueds all the previous ones (See Juctice Barak's book "Interpretation in Law", Vol. 2, p. 132, 135, 138 - when a term is used it has the meening it would have to the common person in the street. You can not learn from an item in a definition what it does not include (but only that "artisitic work" includes "useful art"). As it is not defined we check what the scolars wrote. In any case, even before the change of the wording (in 2007), the scholars wrote that it did include all artwork displayed in a museum (see above in the previous section), so it has not the same meening as the UK Law. Deror avi (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless Deror avi is referring to himself as a scholar, nobody wrote that "useful art" includes all artwork displayed in a museum. If that were true, what would the Israel Museum need its Copyright Management Department for? I suggest that someone writes to Amalyah Keshet to ask for her opinion. I can do that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you have not read Dr. Presenti's book (nor what is said above). Presnti wrote that all works in a mueseum permenantly are FOP. As for Keshet - she has no legal background and is not a scholar. She does work at the Israeli Museum who is very strict not allowing any photography therein (the strictest in Israel) just for that reason (to avoid pictures taken and becoming FOP). You can ask for her opinion, but hers is as good as mine (actually mine is better, I know what I am talking about). We can also ask for the WIkimedia foundation to pay for a legal opinion to finalize the issue (although I think they have better things to do with the donations given to them then to stasify Kuipfer's curiousity). Deror avi (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tamir Afori

I now browsed a part of the debate on article 23 in the Knesset here. Not all participants seem equally well-informed, but Tamir Afori clearly knows what he is talking about. And he says that article 23 contains a very specific list, in which drawings, paintings and photos are not included:

בסעיף 23 יש רשימה מאוד מוגדרת של יצירות שזה חל עליהן: יצירה אדריכלית, יצירת פיסול ויצירת אמנות שימושית, לא ציור ולא צילום, למשל

(Now I am just waiting to hear Deror Avi say that he knows better than Afori...) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No.first and foremost, the debates in the Knesset comittee has no legal basis nor can they be precedents in Court. Acctually, the courts disregards it.

Furthermore, as mentioned before. Kuiper can read nor understanf hebrew and therfore he uses google translations and talks nonsense. Knesset memeber Dov Hanin specifically said that "usfull art" includes 2D pictures. Limor Livant understood this section to allow any photography in a public location (such as the pictures hung in the Knesset) and she thought the section should be cancelled as it means that there is no copyright on images of artistic work in public places (obviously, her opinion was not the majority opinion). Michal Refaeli Caduri stated that according to the Law prior to 2008, derivative work of 2D pictures (specificaly Reuven Rubin pictures hanging in the Knesset) was alowed, and Afori stated that this is not going to change. Then Tamir Afori gave the above statment, Eyal shani stated that he is incorrect, and the desision was not to decide anything. No vote took place, and evenatually, the Knesset member's suggestion not to allow commercial use for artwork in a public place was not approved. In total, an before Kuiper is clueless. Deror avi (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For Commons, Tamir Afori's opinion expressed in a legislative committee should carry more weight than Deror avi's misreading of a text by Sarah Presenti. Probably, Israeli courts will disregard Deror avi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

for the record - if you can't read the languge, don;t try and say you do - read the completete protocle - which states the opposit.

Furthermore, as stated before, this has no legal binding. Until the supreme Court states otherwise, the term of "useful art" (which is specifically not defined IN ORDER FOR IT TO HAVE THE COMMON USE MEANING) a stated in the above protocle, have exactly such a meaning - all works of art which are usefull. Deror avi (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not shout, it is not convincing. I read the protocol, and as I already wrote, not all members in the committee were equally well-informed. The Knesset members are not copyright experts. But Tamir Afori was the copyright expert at the Israel Ministry of Justice. He drafted the texts for the 2007 copyright law. It is my impression that several Knesset members wanted to restrict FoP to concommercial use, but Afori advised against that, because one would need transition regulations. But he explained to those that thought otherwise, that paintings, drawings, and photography are not included in article 23. Nobody said that that was incorrect. A vote about a non-commercial clause was postponed, and nothing came of it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Knesset members (the legislators) specifically said that the clause included 2D images and wanted to change the clause. this was not done. But in any event - this is not binding in a Court and can not be presented as evidence (unlike Dr. Presenti's book). Deror avi (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion about article 23, the committee mainly talked about architecture and sculpture. When Dov Hanin said that "useful art" might include photography, Afori corrected him and said that photography was a separate category. Clearly, Afori was the expert on points of law in that meeting. The Knesset members accepted his expertise, and so should Deror avi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The arguments against his opinion (listed above) arose all throughout the discussion. I disagree with your statment that the Kneset members accepted his interpretation. I further argue that this has no bearing on the interpretation of the Law. Deror avi (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There were no arguments against Afori's opinion that article 23 does not include paintings, drawings and photography. But Hanin said that without a definition of "useful art" one would open for abuse, presumably forseeing the sophistic lawyering that Deror avi has been practicing here. Anybody can read this in a google translation of the protocol (it starts with article 22, start reading at article 23). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

U r wrong - and the translation is inaccurate. see Michal Refaeli Caduri for example. Deror avi (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that someone is using Google Translate in order to try and understand the Law. It is an absurd and probably the most unprofessional method I have ever saw. You have a lawyer from Israel, so for heavens sake - Listen to him. He knows and lives this subject. How is it even possible to accept the opinion of someone who doesn't have the necessary understanding of the law, and doesn't even know the local language (i.e Hebrew)? It's a shameful day in my opinion. ברוקולי (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deror avi is saying that Tamir Afori is wrong. I just knew he would. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for an answer. ברוקולי (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to make any more comments on this issue, because I don't see where this discussion is leading, and yet I was asked to look at the recent posts, because I attended one of the sessions of the above-mentioned parliamentary hearings, and I followed the legislation process closely on behalf of wm-il.

First and foremost, the protocol from which Pieter Kuiper quoted is irrelevant to the discussion. Such protocols are not legally binding, and they are published only for the sake of process transparency. Reading the protocol in its original version in Hebrew (rather than a Google translation) leaves no room for doubt. Tamir Afori expressed his OWN view, and it is not compelling. True, he was one of the government employees who phrased the draft law, however what he, or any other official, said during the parliamentary hearings is not legally binding. Hearings are meant to let people bring forth views and ideas BEFORE the final phrasing and the actual legislation.

Furthermore, if you read the protocol carefully, you see that the term אמנות שימושית (omanut shimushit) has been left vague deliberately. MK Dov Hanin suggests that Tamir Afori add a clear definition of this term, but Tamir Afori rejects this proposal, and prefers to leave the term undefined. An undefined term in a law is used when the legislators wish to leave room for flexibility in court rulings.

To sum it all up, the quote that Pieter Kuiper was kind enough to bring us is nor leading us anywhere new. The phrasing of the current Israeli statute leaves enough room for an Israeli court to decide that FOP is not applicable on 2D works, HOWEVER, such court ruling does not exist at the present time. Israeli citizens take pictures of 2D works in public places and publish them as a matter of fact, so it is very unlikely that a court of law would rule against this popular practice.

Finally, I really urge you all to leave this subject. Wikimedia Commons does not, and should not, act as a tribunal, let alone an Israeli one. There is no reason to believe that anyone acts against the law here, and deletion of images based on speculations or pseudo legal analysis is in violation of both "no censorship" and "assume good faith" rules. Wikimedia projects assume people want to keep the law, and know their countries' laws. Suggesting that Israelis try to breach their own country's law, is not helpful for the cooperation among users in this project. Drork (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tamir Afori expressed his expert opinion. It was his job in that committee to explain the meaning of the law. He told the committee very clearly that neither the old British Mandate law nor the new 2007 law make exceptions for paintings and drawings. As is also evident from the text of the law, he told them that paintings and drawing are separate categories. The category of works designated as "useful art/applied art" is diverse and not easy to define (one does not want to include design furniture and stuff like that). But one characteristic that Afori pointed out is that the works in the category "useful art" are typically 3D. There is no language problem here. Dror and Deror plainly disagree with what Afori said. Their own reading of Israeli law is just wishful thinking. Commons should accept the authority of a legal opinion by a copyright expert from the Israeli Ministry of Justice. Commons should stop its infringement on the rights of Israeli artists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two basic misunderstanding which you make - possibly due to Language and lack of legal understanding. Affori's opinion is irreilevant when interpreting the Law (see below), and that MK Dov Hanin's opinion, who states the opposite of Afori, is rellevant. Deror avi (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Afori can say whatever he wants, but it doesn't matter as long as it is not written IN THE LAW or in COURT DECISION. The fact that you are repeating over and over on your mistakes isn't helpful. You are the one that makes wishful thinking. ברוקולי (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr Presenty's opinion isn't law either. And to be honest, I don't think this discussion belongs at the FOP board anymore. And I'll tell you why. Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope say that we only accept free content. Not "maybe free" or "I think it's free" but free content forever. Not something that will change in 20 years when a court finally does interpret this law. In the case of copyrighted art without a license, we allow FOP as an exception where the legislation is clear and unambiguous that no license is required to use the work. In Israel, the law on 2d works isn't settled enough to allow this exemption. Simply put, Commons policy prohibits 2d works from Israel as long as the law isn't settled. If you want to change that, the FOP discussion board is not the right place. If you want to argue that we should accept works that are defined by current Commons licensing policy as unfree, you need to change the underlying policies first, and then change the FOP rules. Please go troll the Commons talk:Licensing forum instead if you want to argue we should accept these unfree works. -Nard the Bard 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken because the law is settled. ברוקולי (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, the law must say that 2D paintings in museums is not permitted under the FOP. As long as it is not in the law it is free. It might be hard to comprehend this, but this is the reality. ברוקולי (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way copyright or Commons policies work. Everything is copyrighted and unfree, unless there are specified exceptions. If the law does not spell out the exception then it is unfree. Period. If you do not like this you will have to change basic Commons policies and THEN the FOP rules. -Nard the Bard 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

But the law says that it is free... ברוקולי (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nard - see below. Deror avi (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Applicability of Tamir Afori's Opinion

I wish to adress both the applicability of Tamir Afori's opinion and what nard said above. First - the language of the Law is simple and clear - any usfull art in a public place permenantly is free. The term "usful art" in common Hebrew is understood by all Hebrew speekers to include also 2D images, painting and maps. If this will ever be brought before the Court, the Court will check the commonly understood meening of the term, then it will check the writing of scholars - in this case - the leading scholar is Presenti. The Court can not check the committee notes as it is hearsay. It can not be brought into evidence the only centneces from the opinion which may be considered by the Court (in a lesser value then the writting of scholars, are the saying of the MK's. In the above protocole MK Dov Hanin states the exact opposite of Affori's opinion. To some up - the Law is clear and the litrature is clear. In view of the Litrature - derivative images are taken everywhere in Israel (except some musuems who, knowing the Law - enforce prohibition of taking pictures - as these pictures will be free. Wikimedia Israel has tried to negotiate with the Isreal museum to allow photography and the museum did not agree knowing the images will be free). In the past years - never have such a claim be filed in Court (a rulling in copyright Law is given on a daily basis - I get a rulling on one subject or other almost every day. Never have a claim been filed in this regards, as all understand such images are free. According to commons policy - once we are sure something is free we must allow appload. Any Laws may be change in the future, ever retroactivly. should we not allow upload just in case France may one day in the future decide that copyright in france is 300 years? If A court in Israel may rule deferently in the Futute (and even if a claim is filed this year it will take 10 years at least to reach the Supreme Court) only then should we delete the images. Any countries Court can change any interpretation, but once we can base our lega arguments on the leading scholars, and without any precedents we can allow the aploads. Deror avi (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And Bard - please note that the current statment at the page is correct and accurate. Kuiper's edit war does not change this fact. Deror avi (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Deror is 100% correct. Tamir Afori, as an experienced lawyer and state employee, cannot and will not give a compelling legal interpretation in a parliamentary hearing. Throwing ideas is common and most welcomed in such hearing, but these ideas are not compelling unless introduced into the law, which is not the case here. There are no "default prohibitions" in the Israeli legal system, nor in any other liberal legal system. If something is prohibited, it should be stated clearly in the law itself or in a compelling authorized decision. Presenti's book is enough to prove that the law does not prohibit taking pictures of 2D works placed permanently in public places. Don't get me wrong - this situation can change in the future, but then again, laws and court rulings can change so many things related to the material uploaded to the Commons. If we worry about the future like that, we'll have to delete most of the material here. And another thing - the legitimacy of about 70% of the Commons' material can be contested. Pieter Kuiper knows that very well, as he questioned the legitimacy of so many images and opened so many deletion requests. In most cases his arguments were too far-fetched to be taken into account. I don't know why he insists here, and I don't want to know. I think we have proven beyond any reasonable doubt (so to speak) that this debate should end and be archived. Drork (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The law is clear: artistic works (paintings, drawings, sculpture, photos, architecture, applied art) are protected by copyright by default. I cannot believe that Drork denies that. There is an exemption for architecture, and for such sculpture and applied art as is permanently located in a public place. The Israeli term for applied art has the literal translation "useful art", but Deror avi is not correct when he says that Hebrew speakers take this to include even maps. Tamir Afori clearly said that the legal term applied to 3D objects. To test the issue anybody can do a google image search on "אמנות שימושית". Deror's reference to Presenti is a fabrication, as her quote does not even mention the term "works of artistic craftmanship" (as it was in the British Mandate law, which was in force when she wrote). Deror avi and Drork agree with me that Afori explicitly says that paintings and photography are not included in FOP. That should settle the issue here: ignore humbug, go by the expert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Dov Hanin disagrees with Afori, it is clear that his opinion isn't the right one. For your information, in Israel only the Kneseet (and the supreme court of justice in rare cases) can decide about the content of the law, and not some clerk from the MOJ. ברוקולי (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hanin was of the opinion that public paintings should be protected by copyright. Afori told him that this was the case. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that so? he says "לדעתי צריך להגדיר מהי יצירת אמנות שימושית. ", and it is clear from that there is no specific definition and therefore it is permitted. Where does he say it? Where is the decision to put such thing in the law? ברוקולי (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hanin said that without a definition of "אמנות שימושית", one would open for abuse, like people claiming that a photo was useful. With that, he was foreseeing the abuse of the law that Deror, Drork, and you are practicing here. But as Afori told him, photography is a separate category, distinct from "applied art". Sure, Hanin still thought that it would be better to define "applied art", but this is not an easy thing to do, and he did not propose a definition. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As always - you are wrong (probably due to not understanding the Language). MK Hanin specificly says that the term should be defined, as in common meaning and without a definition - "למשל, יצירת אמנות שימושית יכולה להיות ברמה העקרונית, יכולה להיות צילום. " - "For example, useful art can be, a photograph, as a matter of principle" - ie Hanin specificaly said that without a definition the Section would include photography. At the end of the discussion it was decided not to add a legal definition, and the currently law uses the term in its General meaning. Deror avi (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Knesset member Hanin was afraid that there was a loophole in the law. He feared that people would come and dissect the term "אמנות שימושית" into "any art that I can use for something". But that is not its meaning in Hebrew (as a simple Google image search will show). Afori (the expert from the Ministry of Justice) then explained that there was no loophole, because the definition section of the law very clearly says that photography, maps, drawings, and paintings are categories separate from applied art. You are just acting as a lawyer trying to find a defense for someone who is accused of copyright infringement. You are trying to find a loophole, and you are desparately wriggling to pass the infringed work off as "applied/useful art". You are twisting words by Presenti, you are invoking very special Jewish principles for interpreting the law, but you would not get anywhere with the judge. As long as no lawyer has succeeded in convincing a court, the loophole is not open. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to convince a judge - the Law is simple and clear. Presanti's words are simple and clear. And no claim has ever been filed. Hanin explains the common meaning of the terms and gives an example. He speaks Hebrew. You - google translate. Deror avi (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I bet that, if kuiper is to continue like that, in 2-3 months he will learn both English and Hebrew, convert to Judaism and move to Israel :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have invited Pieter to Israel in the past - and even promised him a tour of the country. Deror avi (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And what he said?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No reply. Deror avi (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

The page is currently protected from edited until December 13. That is not an endorsement of the current version or the contradicting version. A question I'd like answered: Who is "Dr Presently", is his/her name spelt correctly? And what institution is he at and in what paper/book did he make the assertion quoted. I can't verify the existence of the claimed opinion without some info on that.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Amongst Israeli Lawyers, Presenti is considered the leading expert in copyright Law and wrote the leading book on the matter in Israel. Deror avi (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is about Sarah Presenti, of her own law firm. She wrote an authoritative book on copyright law. Nowhere did she say something like: "Applied art is any painting in a museum." It is rather embarassing for Commons that such a weird legal doctrine is ascribed to her here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote above is very clear. all Hebrew speakers have told you that. It is your own personal bias against Israeli that is in the source of the dispute. Deror avi (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact kuiper has bias not only against Israel. He has his own personal bias against Jews as well. He is an antisemite.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And you conclude this based on your knowledge in Hebrew. How interesting since you don't know that language. ברוקולי (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the text slighty (to fix spelling and change "the" to "a" Presenti is not the authority, but is one authority (of several). ברוקולי, "applied art is any painting in a museum" is a very strong statement. Stating that "because you cannot read Hebrew you cannot comment on Israeli law" is not constructive to a solution. I note that several Hebrew quotes are mentioned in this discussion, and these quotes have made discussion harder rather than easier (due to the lack of translation). I'd encourage people here to stick to English, and provide translations to any Hebrew quote.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A much appreciated translation of what Presenti actually wrote was spplied by User:Okedem here. She does not even mention the term "applied art" there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

She wrote it in here chapter of the book dealing with applied art. This is here comment on the relevant section of the Law. Pieter - if you cant read the language, and dont have the book, nor have a clue in the relevant law - dont twist the facts. Deror avi (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the only quote by Presenti that you have supplied, and you have twisted Presenti's words. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if you truely understand english. Maybe you google translate english as well. Deror avi (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see a quote (which I assume you both accept the English translation of). That quote states that taking photos when photography is banned is a civil matter not a copyright matter. That quote has been provided without context, apart from the statement it is in a chapter on "applied art". Is it a stand-alone statement? Is it part of a lengthy discussion? That broader context would make the meaning of the quote clearer (the surrounding text might indicate clearly that its meant to be a broad-reaching statement or a narrow statement that "banning photography doesn't provide additional copyright protection"). The continuing personal attacks are not exactly helpful...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A translation (not provided by me) is very clear [3]. There is a leangthy chepter in her book about the relevant section of the Law. Most of it deals with other parts of the Section (i.e. what is "architectural work" and what is a statue, as well as comperative asspects to other legal systems. The relevant section with regards to "usefull art" is the one copied. If you wish, I can copy here further sections from the book (but it is copyrighted and as they are not relevant, i doubt it is "fair use"). It is, of course, in Hebrew, and will need by translated. Deror avi (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Israel FOP still unclear

The project page now has this sentence:

According to Dr Presenty, the leading Israeli Copyright Scholar, this term applies to all works of art displayed permenantly in public, including any artwork hung permenantly in museums.

This needs a more precise definition and clarification to avoid what seems to me an obvious loophole. Does this maybe apply only to works of art by Israeli citizens, or that created in Israel? Is there an Israeli law that forbids museums from displaying non-Israeli works? Otherwise, what stops someone taking a photograph of a painting, that is copyrighted in Italy say, but that is displayed in a museum in Israel, and then uploading the photograph to Commons under {{FoP-Israel}}? Would that not result in the image of the painting becoming freely licensed? I also think clarifications, with specific examples, would be helpful for Template:FoP-Israel and Commons:De_minimis#Israel. -84user (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The law applies to all "usefull art" premenantly in a public place no matter where it was created. A statue that is copyrighted in Italy (no FOP) or France - when moved to Israel (or the UK for that matter) and permenatly placed there will become free. In Israel - any image in a museum is free. That is why musuems usually have a very stickt policy of not allowing any photography.

with this regards - see one section below about Norway - it is the same idea. Deror avi (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please not that we are talking about a work that is permanently placed in a public place. If a foreign artist is kind enough to contribute a painting, so that it would be displayed permanently in a public place in Israel, then he accepts its treatment according to the local law. If he expects to get the painting back, then you cannot say it is displayed in Israel permanently. Please note that the case of taking pictures in a museum is very rare. Most museums in Israel do not allow it at all, and demand the deposit of cameras at the front desk. We are talking here about frescoes in churches, interesting signs etc. These kinds of works are numerous in Israel, and no one has ever questioned the right to photograph them and publish the photograph. For example, you can see derivative works of posters, permanently displayed in public places, on covers of Israeli magazines. No one has ever raised doubts about the right of publishers to do that. Drork (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What Pieter Kuiper does here is giving his own interpretation to the Israeli law. He decided that a certain paragraph in a law, written in a language he cannot read (without machine translation) and applicable in a country he never visited, makes 2D works of arts fully protected in this country. I wouldn't dream of doing such thing even in the case of the French or English laws, two countries whose languages I can read, and whose legal systems are taught throughout the world. The fact that he raised his doubts about the extent of FOP in Israel is legitimate and welcomed, however when he was answered properly and elaborately, he, for some reason, decided to reject the answer based on his own judgment, and kept raising endless questions. Not only does he keep us busy here for no real reason, he also continually questions the good faith and discernment of the Israeli users who are also veteran volunteers in the Wikimedia movement. This is not in line with the proper conduct expected from users in this project. In a way, he also jeopardizes the whole project, because he tries to set non-realistic standards to the upload of images onto the Commons. As I said, far-fetched doubts can be raised regarding to at least 70% of the images on the Commons. If we accept any unreasonable doubt as a deletion criterion, and this is where Pieter Kuiper leads us, we will be left with no Wikimedia Commons at all. Drork (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

For those that don't know, I invited the people most involved to provide further information here: User:Nilfanion/Israel. I believe that as this page is the core of this dispute, the dispute should be handled here.

As a first stage, lets get a version of the section on the page that is acceptable to all. Commons:Freedom of panorama#Israel currently reads:

{{FoP-Israel}}

OK Sections 21 and 23 of the 2007 Copyright Act states that ""Broadcasting, or copying by way of photography, drawing, sketch or similar visual description, of an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art, are permitted if that work is permanently placed in a public place."

• Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 in Hebrew
• Unofficial English translation of the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007

The term "Applied art" (אמנות שימושית) is not defined by the Law and have not been treated by the Courts, however it arises from the previous 1911 Law. According to Dr Presenti, a leading Israeli Copyright Scholar, this term applies to all works of art displayed permanently in public, including any artwork hung permanently in museums.

The part of that is under dispute is just the last sentence. So can we just remove that sentence, until we can settle this?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is fine with me. In the meantime, I am working on writing a summary of the legal situation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper is based on Google translation and is wrong any many counts - especially with regards to an irrelevant rulling misquoted and his disregards of Leagal litrature in Israel which he has no access to. For example - there is no judge by the name of Mordechai Levin, and in the case Juiper is refering to Justice Solberg stated that the wall in question is not a work of art so copyright Law is not applicable at all (there is no question of copyright). Deror avi (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the dispute itself: The definition of the term "applied art" appears to have been left deliberately vague by the drafters of the law, with the intent of leaving it to the courts. Therefore this whole debate comes down to the question "What is the definition of "applied art" (אמנות שימושית) under Israeli law"?

The law doesn't specify, and there appears to be no case law since the copyright act came into effect. There may be cases prior to 2007 that are relevant. Dr Presenti's opinion is relevant as the courts are likely to consider it if a case does arise. Personally, I cannot believe that she would write a book on the topic without giving a definition of the term "applied art". Could someone with access to her book find out how she defines the term and present it here?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

here is my version of the current situation in Israel -My Summery - here.

As to case law - the 2008 Law did not change the Law that was prior to 2008 and therefore, there was never any case Law with regards to the term. According to rules of interpretation the term "אמנות שימושית" should have its commons meaning to a Hebrew speaker (any usefull artwork). Deror avi (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Deror Avi is a lawyer, I'm not. And yet I studied the issue of the Israeli copyright legislation to some extent, as I was Wikimedia Israel's representative to the parliamentary hearings about the subject. As far as I know, the Hebrew term omanut shimushit can have several meanings: "applied art", "useful work", "useful art" etc. There is no legal definition to this term, and according to some remarks during the parliamentary hearing, it was probably left vague deliberately. The "words of explanation" given to the lawmakers before voting, say the new statute does not change the status quo regarding FOP. Courts sometimes use these "words of explanation" when the actual phrasing of the statute is unclear. An Israeli court never addressed the issue of FOP extent, simply because no one in Israel ever appealed to court about this matter. The common practice in Israel is that FOP is allowed, period. People appeal to court when they think their rights are compromised. When something is acceptable on all, no one complains about violation of his rights. Furthermore, the Israeli legal system, like the Common Law, values customs and habits, especially when the law is vague. If an Israeli court of law is ever asked to address the issue of 2D FOP, it would probably rule according to the common practice. This explanation of mine is by no means a legal advice, but I am an Israeli citizen who lives in Tel Aviv, with some relevant knowledge. Other Israeli users who have been asked gave similar answers.

Pieter Kuiper's summary of the situation in Israel should be regarded as an attempt of mine to summarize the legal situation in Finland. It would be a nice experience, but not a reliable account. Drork (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The question of FOP in Israel is a settled matter - it clearly exists. The Hebrew term is typically translated as "applied art", but that doesn't mean its the only way of interpreting it. What I would ask is how would an ordinary Israeli citizen understand the term "useful art"? To me the distinction between "useful art" and "art" is that "useful art" has some practical utility beyond being a piece of artwork.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll let Deror give the more educated answer about legal definitions. As for the common interpretation of the term - it's a matter of context. It is a bit like asking how high a building should be to be called "sky scrapper". The term is indeed vague. It is indeed used to translate the English term "applied art", but this is only one context of several possible (most HE-to-EN translators who encountered this vague term, simply reverted the EN-to-HE common translation as a workaround). In our context here, we are talking, by and large, about 2D works such as frescoes in public buildings, decorated signs, signs containing maps, designs of flags etc. A normal Hebrew speaker would regard them as covered by the term omanut shimushit unless a stricter definition is offered to him. Drork (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How about I turn the question around. What would a normal Israeli citizen consider to be not an example of omanut shimushit?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding (and as is detailed in the explanation to the Law) - the purpose of the Law is to allow photography in public places. The question would be what is not permenantly in a public place (commercials for example, or posters, and temporary exhibitions). All these can not be photographed. As for examples for what is not artwork see here or see above my comment here. Deror avi (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no examples there of "artwork" that you do not consider "useful". Permanent vs temporary is a settled problem (I think you'll find both you and Pieter agree on that). As I said above the problem is purely with the definition of "applied/useful art". There must be some forms of artwork you do not consider useful, please give some examples of artwork that is not "useful art".--Nilfanion (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that these examples are not usefull art:

• 
  Litterary work
• 
  Mostly text
• 
  Text

mostly because I do not think it is art to be displayed (not that litrature is not art - but rather it is not art to be used). Usually artwork is useful by definition. But text (litrature) is outside the scope of the definiton. Again - the purpose of this section of the Law is to allow free photography of public locations. Accordinlgy everything in the public eye (unless temporarily there) should be free. Books for example - are usufull art, but can never be permenantly in public. The text therein is art, but not usefull art. Deror avi (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not disputing that the purpose of the law is to allow photography in public places! :) However, you are missing what I am asking for. Not all artwork is useful, and this is as true in Israel as it is anywhere else. The phrase "אמנות שימושית" is in the copyright law to cover the various types of artwork, which need FOP protection, that are not already mentioned such as architecture and sculpture. Its legally imprecise, yes. However, for the phrase "useful art" to have any meaning at all there must also be "non-useful art". Please give me some examples (it doesn't have to be specific cases, it doesn't have to be on Commons) of something that you consider to be both "Artwork" and "Not useful artwork". You have given literature as an example, can you give any example of visual art?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The rules of interpretation of Laws state that when interpreting the Court choses the interpretation which would enable the intention of the Knesset (not the original intention but the pursposful one - but that's another issue). In the explanation to the Law, the Knesset gave the puprpose of the Law was "to allow the public to photograph the works of art, to draw or to broadcast an image from the place it is located" - i.e. the intention of the Legistlator was to allow photogrpahy of all works of art in public places permenantly. hence the use of the term which is very broad, and intended to include not only "pictures" and "paintings" but also "artistic benches" any useful artistic worksee Here - therefore, unless the work displayed is not art (a regular bench) or not useful art (i.e. literary text even if public display) it is free to photograph. Deror avi (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm free to take a picture of an artistic bench (because its art) in Israel but not a regular one (because its not art)? That makes no sense to me. Surely I'm allowed to take a picture of the normal bench regardless of FOP, and also the artistic one too because it is covered by FOP. Thanks for clarifying your understanding of the terms though.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are free to take pictures of a regular bench as it is not subject to copyright at all. Only art is subject to copyright. Deror avi (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion on the practical level. This strange term omanut shimushit worths a research, especially as the legislators chose it for it vagueness rather than its clarity (or so it seems from some documented remarks). Nevertheless, this research should not be conducted here, but in a law school. We are here to address practical issues. We had a picture of fresco inside a church. This picture was deleted on the account that the Israeli FOP version does not cover 2D works. This claim is obviously wrong, so the image can be undeleted. We have the issue of Israeli insignia. In this case the copyrights belong to the State of Israel, but since there is nothing to suggest that they should be treated differently from other works (from the copyright issue perspective), we can conclude that the copyrights on most of them expired, and the rest can be treated according to the FOP principle. The Israeli copyright law also includes an elaborated paragraph about "de minis" which gives a lot of room for taking pictures without copyright infringement. The Israeli law did not go so far as to allow taking pictures of any possible work of art permanently displayed in a public place, however, here, in the Commons, we never encountered a case in which the Israeli FOP principle had been taken too far. The limit is set in a very long distance from the common practice, and indeed people rarely cross it (if ever). Drork (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Omanut shimushit" is not a strange term in Hebrew. It is the title of this book for kids - about decorating flower pots and making pretty picture frames and stuff like that. The concept is clear, it is just hard to define a category that spans everything from simple toys and decorative ashtrays to fountains on city squares. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've just proven our point here. There is an explanation in Hebrew about this book's content. If you were able to read it, you could see this booklet deals with nearly every form of art, or as the author puts it "let's just be creative". :-) Drork (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask again. Does Dr Presenti give a definition of "אמנות שימושית"? If so what is it? :)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No - there is no definition in the Law - but Presenti gives an example - "artwork hung in a musem". Deror avi (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The quotes attributed to Presenti here do not include the phrase "artwork hung in a museum". In fact the statement we do have, in the context of "applied art" would be equally valid regarding artwork in the British Museum under English law. I assume Dr Presenti mentioned "artwork hung in a museum" (as opposed to artwork displayed) somewhere else in her book - could you provide that quote?--Nilfanion (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! I wish I had thought of saying that the last few months. This seems to have cliched it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

@Nilfanion, sure she talks about museums. Dr. Presenti is talking about artwork displayed in any public places. A museum is only an example of such public place. Please see the first statement from the link you provided "A public place that a visitor enters in exchange for payment or authorization, for instance a museum". Why she's talking about entrance fee public places specifically? Only to explain that one, who's taking pictures there "is breaking an agreement between him and the owner of the property", if photography there is prohibited, yet she specifically mentions that even in those cases no copyrights laws are broken. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Sarah Presenti's quote would also be valid for the British Museum and English law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. I was trying to say that if the copyright laws of Israel were absolutely the same as they were written under George V of the United Kingdom, why would Dr. Presenti write her book in the first place, and what would be the role of Knesset in those laws?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the English Law that well, so I don't try to say what is allowed or not allowed there. With regards to the Israeli Law and specificaly with regards to this section of the Law Presenti made her statment. I don't understand what you meen by "I assume Dr Presenti mentioned "artwork hung in a museum" (as opposed to artwork displayed) " - Presenti mentions artwork "displayed" in a museum and states that the photography is allowed according to the copyright Law. That is why this whole argument is redicules - unless Kuiper thinks he knows better than Israel's leading expert in copyright Law. Deror avi (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is boggles the mind, but I can read Sarah Presenti better than you. Already in June my tentative interpretation was right. I thought that Nilfanion's question had finally made you understand Presenti's words, but unfortunately, you still do not seem to get it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nilfanion, the distinction you present, of "hung" vs. "displayed" is meaningless here - the hebrew word for "hung", "תלויות", is not used in this context. "מוצגות" ("displayed") is the only word used for any kind of art in museums, be it paintings, sculptures or any other object. Presenti discusses the works presented in the museum generally, not with regard to a specific kind. "היצירות שמוצגות בו" means "the works displayed in it". Notice the "the" (I apologize, but I forgot it in my translation you linked to above). The "the" is the direct translation of the "ה" preceding the word "יצירות" (works, creations). "Works" is not qualified in any way, which means she's discussing all kinds of works displayed in a museum. Frankly, this is clear, and there's no point in discussing this any more - we have a somewhat unclear statute, but a clear practice, and a legal opinion to support it. Whatever we might think of the confusing term "אמנות שימושית" ("useful art" or close) is simply irrelevant. Okedem (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are reading Presenti as if it is infallible Scripture where every letter has a meaning. So this whole FOP-theory hangs on the thin thread of the definite article ה? But "the" does not generally mean "all" (which is כל, a word that Presenti did not use). If such overinterpretations do not make sense, they must be discarded. Certainly, such speculations must not be ascribed to Presenti as if she actually wrote it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And certainly, people who do not speak the language, should not argue over its subtleties. It is nothing short of insulting that you continue to try to interpret a text in a language you do not understand, relying on nothing but google translation.

"ה", in this context, means "all", and its use is very different from using the word "יצירות" without "ה"; the difference is clear to any Hebrew speakers, especially a legal expert, and there's no use for the word "כל". Okedem (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>Guys, the point I was making with my statement above is we have 3 sentences of Presenti's opinion. I need additional context to evaluate what she is trying to say in her book. All that I really know is that it is located in a chapter that deals with applied art. If I evaluate the quote in that context, "the works" it talks about will be "works of applied art" but it tells me nothing about the scope of the term "applied art" (or "useful art"). The definition of that term is the problem. A quote without its context is not anything like as useful as a quote with context. I'd also like to see some evidence that it is common practice in Israel to apply FOP to 2D artwork.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As for evidence, it is a bit hard, because the books I have on my shelf are copyrighted, but they include many examples of 2D FOP, here are some references:

• Nathan Alterman&Alex Levac, Tel Aviv Serenade, Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd., Tel Aviv 1999, pp. 41, 42, 46, 50, 54, 74, 75, 106, 107.

I'll try to find more examples, this is just something I picked off my shelf. Drork (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification?

Hello, everyone. It seems to me that a clarification of terms would help this discussion along. Reading both sides' arguments, I think I see an unacknowledged ambiguity in the denotation of אמנות שימושית (applied/useful art), and perhaps spelling it out would help a bit:

• One sense of אמנות שימושית is clearly "applied art", as distinct from "fine art", e.g. an illustration, a diagram, etc. This is, I believe, agreed upon by all participants.
• Another' sense of אמנות שימושית is an inclusive sense, encompassing both fine art and applied art, as mere אמנות (art) is usually shorthand for "fine art".

I believe Deror_Avi's claim is that this is the sense used in the new Israeli Copyright Law in section 1 (definitions); this is certainly a matter of interpretation on Deror_Avi's side, but since the term is not, in fact, clearly defined, and since there has not yet been any court case interpreting it authoritatively yet, Deror_Avi's interpretation cannot be rejected out of hand.

That said, it is not clear to me that the Commons should necessarily choose the more conservative position. Wikimedia could certainly try to "be bold", as the Wikipedia spirit encourages us to be, and seek to test this interpretation by allowing 2D panorama works into the commons, at least until a decisive ruling against it is given. Just my two cents, and I am not a lawyer. Ijon (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please give examples of the second usage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

here is one example (be warned - google translation gives horibble mistakes in translating this). Deror avi (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is about the Ilins. A press release in English shows that their main area is design of functional items. They also included paintings in their concept of interior decorating. This seems to be their design philosophy, and non-standard use of the term in order to make a point. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should wrap up this discussion. For every argument there is a counter-argument, as Pieter Kuiper teaches us, but since we are trying to be practical rather than learn the art of debating, I don't see the point in sending the Israeli users here to find answers to every doubt Pieter Kuiper raises. In other words, are there any more SERIOUS questions about FOP in Israel? Otherwise, I think things have been clarified. Drork (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is settled. The law is very clear that 2D-stuff like paintings, drawings, and maps is not included. This was stated explicitly by Tamir Afori, the expert of the Ministry of Justice: בסעיף 23 יש רשימה מאוד מוגדרת של יצירות שזה חל עליהן: יצירה אדריכלית, יצירת פיסול ויצירת אמנות שימושית, לא ציור ולא צילום, למשל /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What Mr. Afori thinks is beside the point. The only relevant points are the statute, and the court's opinion. The courts don't turn to the Ministry of Justice for their opinions - that's what the separation of powers is. If the lawmakers wanted to make it so clear, they would have explicitly excluded photography and photography in the text of the law, but they didn't. So, if Mr. Afori thinks something is unclear, his office can draft an amendment to the law, but until then - he's irrelevant. Okedem (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is settled. The law is very clear - and the Law as a whole makes no distinction between 2D art and 3D (the courts specificaly said this - I brought quotes above), so no difference should be applied to section 23. Deror avi (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are at least three Israelis here who made their best effort to explain the Israeli law and norms, and they soothed all of the doubts raised by Pieter Kuiper's, including the issue of Tamir Afori to which he clings on so badly. It would be an absurd and a very problematic precedence for the Commons' to trust the opinion of a person living in the NL (or anywhere else for the matter) without relevant knowledge of the subject, and reject the opinion of people living in the relevant country and possessing the relevant knowledge. It would also be a problematic message to the Israeli users, if the Commons' admins suggest that they try to break their own country's law or to mislead the Commons' users. I think there is no reason to continue this discussion. Drork (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr Presenti

On my request, Deror provided me with a copy of the relevant page of Dr Presenti's work - I want to thank him for doing so. This has given me the context I have needed to evaluate the quote. It is the start of a section of the book addressing FOP. She starts by quoting the law of the time (the 1911 British mandate law, S 2 1 (iii)). This provides for "The making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs of a work of sculpture or artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place, or building, or the making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs (which are not in the nature of architectural drawings or plans) of any architectural work of art".

She also mentions how the English legislature reiterated this in Article 9 (3) of a 1956 law and Article 62 of a 1988 law. (The 1988 law is the current copyright law of the UK, with discussion of UK FOP here).

She then goes on to the paragraph we already have. Paraphrasing: A public place that visitors pay to enter (such as a museum) may restrict photography. If this restriction is ignored it is a breach of contract not a breach of copyright.

Further references are to new technology (broadcast by television is OK, and she then justifies this). I'm not sure how much more she writes on this matter but the meaning of the quote is clear:

1. Dr Presenti indicates that FOP (in 2000) applies to sculpture, architecture and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently placed in a public place.
2. Taking pictures in breach of a restriction is a contractual matter.

The English phrase "Works of artistic craftsmanship" is the relevant phrase in the context of her quote not the Hebrew phrase "אמנות שימושית". The English phrase is somewhat clearer than the Hebrew in meaning, and I'm also sure it has substantial case law defining it (as Israeli courts followed English precedence until ~1980). I have to conclude that Dr Presenti's opinion does not match that ascribed to her on the project page and I have removed the sentence ascribed to her. I've also unprotected the page, but will immediately report any reinstatement of that sentence to the AN for another administrator to handle.

However, this does not resolve the question of 2D FOP in itself. As the 2008 law has changed the phrase from "works of artistic craftsmanship" to "works of applied art", which is more vague, the situation may allow 2D FOP now.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent you some examples of the practical use of the FoP principle in Israel. I cannot publish them here because they are taken from copyrighted books or magazines. In these examples, taken before the introduction of the new statute, 2D works like posters or wall paintings take a significant portion of artistic or illustrative photographs. Credits are given only to the photographers and there is no remark about copyrights reserved to the authors of the "inner" works. I took the examples from books of well established publishers, not the kind of people who would break the law or be unaware of it. The official explanations to the new law specifically say that the status qou regarding FoP is meant to remain intact. Drork (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that presanti wrote her book in 2000, based on the customs of Israel as of that year, and refered to "works hung in a museum" - which does include 2D objects. Therefore I see no reason for the removal of the quote, which is clear. Deror avi (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a fact. There is no basis for those quotation marks. The quote makes perfect sense when one interprets it as concerning a museum with modern sculpture and/or applied art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Adv. Yoram Lichtenstein talks about different aspects of FoP in Israel based on Presenti's book, and he understand her words exactly like Deror [4] (under the title "העתקת יצירות אומנותיות המוצגות בציבור"). He refers to article 2(1)(iii) in the old 1911 statute saying "the article allegedly applies only to photographs, sculptures, works of art, architectural works and the like (...) Dr. Presenti says in her book that this article also applies to movies, and necessarily to any other creative works situated permanently in a public place." Drork (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Another example [5]. In this site, run by Israeli lawyers and dedicated to copyright issues, they refer to the FoP-related article in the new statute saying "it is allowed to use a copy of architectural, sculptural or artistic work by way of photographing, drawing or sketching, providing that the work is placed permanently in a public place". This group of lawyers (here are their names: [6]) also interpret the term omanut shimushit simply as "artistic work". Drork (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lichtenstein is another appalling example of an Israeli lawyer stretching the law. First he quotes the old law correctly: "sculpture, architecture". Then he kind of ignores "permanently", emphasizing "in public". Then he suddenly includes photography. And the he goes on to include movies, attributing this to Presenti, although it is absolutely clear that Presenti talks about the inclusion of statues and buildings in film. Then this guy Yoram Lichtenstein extends this to a permission to copy "songs, movies, games, software"! Because such works are permanently in the public!! With this the state of copyright in Israel being like this, one understands why the country is on the US Trade Department's priority watch list. In Drork's second example it is not correct that those lawyers "interpret"; it looks more like a somewhat sloppy quote of the wording of the law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper thinks the Israeli legal system is bad. Fair enough. Your criticism is noted. If you ever want to be an Israeli citizen, you could vote to change the local laws. Until further notice, this is the Israeli law and this is how it is interpreted. End of story. You can feel lucky for living in the Netherlands where the rules are slightly different. Drork (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

At least some piracy of music, film, games, or software must have been brought to court in Israel. Has anybody ever tried the defense suggested by Lichtenstein? Has anybody ever adduced this quote by Presenti as evidence for the defense? Has any judge accepted it? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In my book "Lichtenstein is another appalling example of an Israeli lawyer stretching the law" is a slanderous remark. An Isreali Court has ruled yesterday (Justice Yinon of the Tel Aviv Court) that a similar remark which appeard in a wikipedia talk page is slander, and oredered a compensation of NIS 20,000 (about $5,000). Pieter, if I were you I would appologize to Adv. Lichtenstein. Deror avi (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And another comment - regarding Pieter' statment "With this the state of copyright in Israel being like this, one understands why the country is on the US Trade Department's priority watch list." - it is not the commons place to give criticizm of other countries Laws. The commons should accept each countries laws without any caltural bias. Deror avi (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my question: has anybody ever used Lichtenstein's version of Presenti's opinion in a court case involving piracy of music, film, games, or software? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Have we been talking about piracy here? The fact that you cannot read Hebrew and don't trust Hebrew speakers is not something to bother the Commons' users with. Piracy is one thing and FoP is another, and we are talking here about FoP. No one in Israel ever questioned the idea that a creative work placed permanently in a public place can be photographed, filmed drawn or sketched. The law acknowledges it, the common legal interpretation is clear and the accepted social norms in Israel allow it. Obviously you used a very poor machine translation to read Adv. Lichtenstein's words and you definitely took them out of context. Now, please stop harassing us. Drork (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Presanti's new book

I have just obtained a copy of Dr. Presanti's new book [7], which came out a short while ago (copyright Law third addition), which relates to the new Law. In the section titled: "שידור או העתקה של יצירה שממוקמת במקום ציבורי" ("broadcust or copying an artwork located in a public location")

Dr. Presenti, the leading Israeli copyright scholar, states on pages 1214 - 1215:

"על פי סעיף 23 לחוק מ-2007

"שידור או העתקה בדרך של צילום, ציור, שרטוט או תיאור חזותי דומה, של יצירה אדריכלית, יצירת פיסול או יצירת אמנו תשימושית, מותרים אם היצריה ממוקמת בקביעות במקום ציבורי."

מותרת עשייתם או פרסומם של ציורים, שרטוטים, פיתוחים או צילומים, לרבות שרטוטים אדריכלים של כל יצירה אמנותית שמצויה במקומות ציבוריים.

התנאי להתרת הפעולות של שידור או העתקה בסעיף 23 לחוק מ-2007 הוא שהן מוצגות דרך קבע במקום ציבורי

הפעולות המותרות על פי החסינות שבסעיף זה:

א. ליצור יצירה גרפית שמייצגת את היצירה (ציור, רישום וכדומה)

ב. לצלם את היצירה. ג. לפרסם את עותקי היצירה בכל דרך שידועה כולל הצגתם בפומבי לציבור.

מקום ציבורי שהמבקר בו נכנס אליו תמורת תשלום או בהרשאה, (לדוגמא: מוזיאון) רשאי בעליו להגביל את הצילום או ההעתקה של היצירות שמוצגות בו. העובר על הגבלה זו מפר הסכם בינו לבין בעל המקרקעין או בעל זכות היוצרים אך אינו מפר זכוית יוצרים ביצירה. גם העותקים שיצר אינם עותקים מפירים. התרופות שיעמדו לבעל המקרקעין או לבעל זכות היוצרים הן תרופות בגין הפרת חוזה."

Translation:

According to Section 23 of the Law from 2007:

"Broadcasting, or copying by way of photography, drawing, sketch or similar visual description, of an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art, are permitted where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place."

It is allowed to make or publish a drawing, sketch, development or photographs including architectural sketches of all works of art located in a public location. The condiction for allowing the broadcast or copying according to Section 23 of the 2007 Law is that the artwork is permenantly located in a public location.

The activities that are immune from claims and are allowed according to this section are:

a. to create a graphic reprentation of the artwork (drawing, sketch, etc.)

b. to photograph the artwork.

c. to publish the copies of the artwork in any known possible way including presenting thereof in public.

Any public location in which a visitor is allowed to enter by paying enterance fees or by permission (for example: a museum), the owner of the location may limit photography or copying of the artworks presented therein. Any person breaching this limit, is in breach of a cotract between him and the property owner or copyright holder, but is not in breach of the copyright of the artwork. Nor are the copies he created in breach of the copyright. The only remedies for the property owner or the copyright holder are contractual remedies.

I think that it is clear from this that any artwork in a public location (whether 2D or 3D) are free to photograph. Deror avi (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no use in the above citation. Pieter Kuiper has made up his mind, and he is the supreme leader of the Commons. Drork (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is he now? Well, I'm the Commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces. I'm supreme compared to him.

Now seriously. The law was clear from the beginning, and the book of Dr. Presanti made it even more. I do believe it is time to end this discussion with a call to Pieter Kuiper to avoid dealing in things he has no knowledge about them. Barack Hussein Obama II (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, in this version it says "all": כל יצירה אמנותית שמצויה במקומות ציבוריים

This is weird (unless one interprets יצירה as applying here to 3D objects). Does the book have any footnotes or references in this section? Does Presenti say anything about how extreme a 2D indoors FOP would be in an international comparison? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

no footnotes. And I have mentioned before - the Israeli Court specificaly ruled that there is no difference in Israeli Law between 2D or 3D or 0D. An artwork is a concpet, and it doesn't matter its shape. Indoor 2D artwork have been photographed in Israel for many years, never objected by the Courts. Presnti has mentioned it in her 2000 book as mentioned above. This should not surprise Law. Deror avi (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that Deror avi gives a correct interpretation of the opinion expressed by Sarah Presenti. She writes כל יצירה אמנותית ("all artistic works"), using the exact same Hebrew words as in the definition of artistic works in article 1: "including drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works, photographic works and works of applied art."

But her opinion is strange. It is not supported by court decisions. It goes against a simple reading of the law text, and it goes against the expert opinion by Tamir Afori. This is not established law. According to COM:PRP, Deror avi's reintroduction of Presenti's opinion on the main page is not justified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I know Pieter Kuiper will never be convinced. He has a bias and it is deeply rooted no matter what evidence we will bring him. All I have to say is this- Aforis' opinion is his own - and can not be brought before the court as evidence being hearsay. Presanti is the leading copyright expert and her book is considered the "אורים ותומים" (Urim and Thummim) on copyrights in Israel. Her books are referenced and quoted by the Courts. It should be sufficient for the commons. The quote is not ambiguous nor is out of context. Therefore it should remain being a clear representation of the leading Israeli expert on the subject. Deror avi (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In a civil suit, there could not be a problem using the Knesset protocol as evidence, I think. And if the procedural rules of a criminal trial would be in the way, the prosecution could just call on Afori as an expert witness, to give evidence and be cross-examined in a court session. There is no doubt what he would say. Also, one may expect that the opinion of Presenti will be scrutinized in book reviews and scholarly papers. This is not established law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And now you pretend to be an expert on Israeli Evidence Law? well first of all this is not a Knesset protocole, but a comittee protocole. And no - it has no value as evidence. Afori will need to testify (which he can not, being a civil servant). A criminal claim can also not be brought for various reasons which I am not going to list as this is irrelevant. When scrutinized in book reviews and scholarly papers are written, we can adress them. The Law may also be changes in the future. When that event will also happen, we will address it. The current Law is clear, it uses a term clear to all Hebrew speakes (the Law does not make any diference between 2D and 3D artwork which you are so insistant about), and the current writting of a leading scholar on the subject is even clearer (though I am sure not to your liking. But it has been ascertained before that most Israeli pictures are not to your liking). Deror avi (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tamir Afori recently joined a Law office, he can testify as an expert. There are of course also other experts that would disagree with Presenti. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

When a Court will issue a rulling based on such an opinion, we will need to readress this issue. Until then the Law is clear. And its interpretation by the leading expert on the subject is also very clear. Deror avi (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper, you are a wealthy man with a lot of free time. Do call Mr. Afori's office, phrase a question for him, pay his fee, and send us his legal advice. If you are so concerned, I think you should be more than willing to pay for a legal advice from an Israeli lawyer whom you trust. Drork (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as I thought. You know the answer and rightfully prefer to spare your effort and money. I hope that's finally the end of this discussion. Drork (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What Sarah Presenti seems to say about museums does not agree with מותר ללא הגבלה on Hebrew wikipedia. That section says that photos of works in museums by artists that died less than 70 years ago are not free. Of course, a wikipedia article is not Urim and Thummim in a court of law, but it shows that Drork and Deror avi are not representing a unanimous Israeli opinion in this matter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The section in Hebrew Wikipedia stated exactly the oposite "צילום של כל אובייקט המוצג במקום ציבורי דרך קבע" - but you cant read Heberw so you don't have a clue. There was reference to Museums outside Isreal which I now clarified.

Also - why read the Hebrew wikipedia user manueal and not the article - see here: "בעת צילום של יצירה מוגנת בזכויות יוצרים (ציור או פסל, לדוגמה), ניתן להשתמש בצילום רק בתנאי שהתקבל אישור מבעלי זכויות היוצרים של היצירה המוגנת. אין צורך באישור כזה כאשר היצירה מוצגת לציבור, ובלבד שיצירה זו מוצגת דרך קבע במקום ציבורי". Deror avi (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that it was Deror avi who had added the restrictions about exhibited works that were still copyrighted. But that was almost two years ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A a person who can't read the language it always surprises me how much you try (without success) to interpret it using google. I am going to put it bluntly - you got it wrong - you misunderstood what was written there by me. You have no clue in general of the Israeli Law and your attemtps to understand it using google translation show your childlike behaviour. You pick and choose one sentence ignoring the one before it. And google, apperantly doesn't realy help you. If you wish to apply the policy of Hebrew Wiki here - then take notice it allows upload of all photography of all works of art permenantly in the public view (including 2D images), based on the Law. It is true that most Hebrew users prefer not to upload images to the commons just to aviod endless arguments with you. it has been advised before that Hebrew wikipedia would stop using commons images and start holding all images localy (and advise all Hebrew speakers not to upload images here), but I personaly think it is against the aims of the foundation to have such seperation. I think that, in general, the commons project will be better without your assistance. Deror avi (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony Greenman

I would like to know what Tony Greenman says about the issue in chapter 6.5 of the new edition of his book זכויות יוצרים ("Copyright" - a detailed table of contents is here) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Greenman explains the rational of allowing photography of works of art in the public view:

"בהצעת החוק או בדיונים שהתנהלו בוועדת הכלכלה של הכנסת לא ניתן הסבר להיתר זה, מלבד העובדה כי היתר דומה היה קיים בחוק הקודם כי מקובל לבצע את הפעולות האמרונות, וכי היצירה האדריכלית, יצירת הפיסול או יצירת האמנות השימושית הנתונות להיתר נמצאות במקום ציבורי. הרציונל האחרון הוא המשכנע. הצבתן במקום ציבורי הפכה את היצירות הנדונות ל"חלק מהנוף". ממילא זכאי הציבור להביט ביצירות הללו ולהפיק מהן הנאה אסתטית. החוק מאפשר להעביר הנאה בו גם באמצעים בלתי ישרים."

Translation: "At the explenation to the Law and the debates in the Knesset economics committe no rational was given to this section, apart from the fact that a similar premision existed in the previous law, and it is a common practice to do such actions, and that the architecture, the statue or the work of useful art is located in a public place. The last rational is the main one. The placing thereof in a public place makes the works of art "part of the view". The public is entitled to view this works of art and enjoy them anyhow, therefore the Law allowes the provide this enjoyment also in indirect manner."

Thus Greenmen explains why the Israeli Legislator deems everything in the public domain to be FOP. Deror avi (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So Greenman does not extend the freedom of panorama to all artistic works, but he is listing only the 3D categories of architecture, sculpture, and applied art. He refers to common practice. This must refer to international customs of copyright legislation in many countries, as also Afori did in the Knesset committee. If Israel had been the extremely libertarian exception to international custom, Greenman could not have said that this is common practice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No - read again - he extended it to all works of art located in public domain - as is the rational of the Law - whatever in the public view may remain in the public view, even by derivative work. His opinion is the same as Persanti. Every person who reads this text understands this (exept you - but you cant read Hebrew or English and googles translates). Deror avi (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And I know Kuiper can read English, for I have mentioned it about 7 times before and he still doesn't comprehand - The Israeli law does not make any difference between 2D work and 3D. The Court have ruled that the Law applies to all dimentions (and all terms apply both to 2D and 3D as art is a concept and not a dimentional object, a painting may be 2D, 3D or 0D). "Useful art" may be 2D or 3D or 0D. The Courts have rulled for example that "Useful art" inclueds building and architectural works (3D), a two dimentional picture menu for a resturant (2D), a photograph (2D), as well as for arrangment of images on a billboard sign (0D - a concept) (all for the puprose of copyright law but not in relevance to Section 23, on which there are no court rullings). Deror avi (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli copyright law makes an implicit but clear distinction between 2D and 3D. Article 1 enumerates artistic works in a mixed list. Of this list only the 3D items (architecture, sculpture, applied art) are exempted from copyright protection when permanently situated in a public place. However, the exemption is limited to making 2D derivatives ("photography, drawing, sketch or similar visual description"). Also Tamir Afori used these terms in the committee of the Knesset.

As for Greenman: the whole purpose of copyright law is to give economic rights to creators that make their work available to the public. Only some things in public view are free. Most countries agree that images of buildings should be free (exceptions: Italy, France, Belgium, Iceland). But I know of no country that permits the commercial exploitations of copies of recent 2D images exhibited indoors. It is a departure from the whole idea behind copyright (and the Bern convention). Tony Greenman is not saying anything like that. His words apply to almost every country. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Aparently Kuiper is realy too daft to understand, so I am going to say it for the last time. The Court have rulled many times that objects that are 2D are "useful art". There is no distincition in the Law, apart from the mind of Kuiper. Greenman specificaly explains the rational of the Law - everything in the public view permenantly may remain in the public view (derivative works allowed). Afori's personal opinion was not accepted by the members of the Knesset, nor is it accepted by the scholars and the courts. As for the Bern convention - apparently you do not understand it either. Its purpose is to protect in other countries whatever is protecte in one. What is protected in Israel should be protected elsewhere, and what is free in Israel should be free elsewhere. If an image becomes free in Israel (a painting permenantly in Israel is free in Israel and should be free elsewhere). Deror avi (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Afori's professional opinion as the Government's expert was accepted by the Knesset politicians, because otherwise for example Limor Livnat would probably have proposed the limitation of FOP to non-commercial purposes, or Dov Khenin would have proposed a definition of "applied art". They did not want a FOP with extremely loose limits. They wanted that artists should get paid for their work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And as to Bern - also Israel agreed to:Members shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder. (en:Berne three-step test) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As before, you can't read Hebrew, and apparently your google translation jumbles all the meanings. Both Livnat and Hanin said what she they exactly because they disagreed with Afori (and was against commercial use of statues in public locals). Eventually the Law was not changes, and as Greeenman and Presenti state - all works of art permenatly in the public view are free to be photographed. The Law is clear and its interpretation is clear (as can be seen above). However you may dislike it, Israelis, or Israel in genral, you can not change the Israeli law. I know I will not be able to convince you, and it is pointless to try. Everything you mentioned above is incorrect. The term "אמנות שימושית" - "useful art" in common Hebrew (which you are clueless of), and as it is used by the Courts include 2D artworks. Nowhere in the Law it is said otherwise. Deror avi (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

After I have read the documents mentioned above, I must say that Deror avi is right. Pieter Kuiper tries once more to understand complicated texts with machine translation, and yet again fails miserably. Since he is clearly determined to continue this harassment, I will report him to the administrators. We have better things to do rather with arguing with someone who doesn't want to listen or learn the necessary subjects in order to understand. Kooritza (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a closer look at the Greenman quote, and I do not think its translation is accurate. At a crucial point, I regard Deror avi's rendition as misleading. Greenman wrote: הצבתן במקום ציבורי הפכה את היצירות הנדונות ל"חלק מהנוף" Deror avi translates it as: "The placing thereof in a public place makes the works of art "part of the view"." But Greenman does not use the technical term for "works of art". He refers to the "works discussed", i.e. the works in the list of 3D items in article 23: architecture, sculpture, and applied art. Also "חלק מהנוף" seems to be more related to panorama or landscape, than to a very general concept of what is "in view". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The wonders of google translation. And still - all works of art in public view are free to be photographed. That what the Laws says, and that what the leading Israeli copyright scholar says. I think this discussion should end with that, And Kuiper's attempts to delete as many Israeli pictures as he can without any legal basis should be stoped. Deror avi (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

But Greenman does not say it. Greenman refers to architecture, sculpture, and applied art – not to "all works of art in public view". Deror avi just dismisses the top legislative expert on copyright of the Israeli Ministry of Justice. He seems to have the same esteem Afori as of me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Afori is not the top legislative expert of the ministry of justice, he was just the representative at that meeting. As for dismissing - Presenti is without doubt the leading Israeli expert on the matter, and Kuiper ignores her compeletly just because her clear statment does not comply with his unjustified prejudiced opinion. Deror avi (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Afori was the Government's foremost expert on copyright. It seems that he was the civil servant assigned to the task of drafting the Government's proposal for the text of the 2007 law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not accurate. There were at least two state-lawyers who drafted this law. As I mentioned before, I was present at one of the parliamentary hearings on behalf of Wikimedia Israel. There were two state-lawyers there, and the two of them were responsible for drafting the law and introducing changes as requested by the MPs. In any case, once the law is approved it is the state's law, to be interpreted by Israeli courts of law and/or Israeli authorized legal scholars. The opinion of the specific person who drafted the law is not compelling nor prevailing. Drork (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Drork said "The opinion of the specific person who drafted the law is not compelling nor prevailing" and i would add - "and is of no importance whatsoever". Moreso - the opinions of the MK's at the debate is of no improtance and is ignored by the Courts. It is the Court's job to interpret the Law based on the official purpose of the Law "דברי ההסבר". Deror avi (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Outside view, December 2009

OK, I've been watching this dispute for a while now and trying not express an opinion as such, until I'm sure where I stand. Its clear is that neither side is going to change the other side's opinion and there is no prospect of that happening in the foreseeable future (as nothing short of an actual court ruling will do that). Therefore IMO there is no prospect of any sort of consensus being acheived by further discussion.

I'm going to try and summarise what I think of the situation and ask for endorsement (or otherwise) of my view from the broader community.

1. The dispute is about the scope of Freedom of Panorama in Israel. Specifically does it extend to cover 2-dimensional artwork?
2. What is not in dispute is that an artwork must be permanently situated in a public place to be covered by the FOP provisions. 3D works such as architecture and sculpture are clearly covered by FOP.
3. The precautionary principle states that if the law is unclear we err on the side of caution. This means solid evidence needs to be provided that an exemption exists before we will accept material under that exemption. The burden of proof is on those who believe the exemption exists.
4. The actual law is not clear. Apparently this was a deliberate decision to give the courts freedom to decide how to interpret it.
5. The opinions of a number of lawyers have been mentioned. Whilst these are not binding, they give an indication into how the law is interpreted.
   1. Sarah Presenti states in her 2008 book "Copyright Laws" (pp1214-1215) that all art permanently situated in a public place is covered by FOP (quote and translation). This is a strong statement that cannot be misinterpreted. Her book is also likely to be consulted in any case, so her thinking is likely to influence the decision of the court.
   2. Tony Greenman in chapter 6.5 of his book on copyright (Table of contents)(quote and translation) restates the law and provides no real indication of its scope beyond the letter of the law. He indicates that he believes "applied art" has a broad application, though his phrasing is more ambiguous. This agrees with Dr Presenti. His book is likely to be consulted by a court. (For explanation of struck statement, see this edit.)
   3. Tamir Afori: The quote attributed to him comes from Kneeset discussion of the copyright law (source), and indicates that he believes 2D works are excluded from FOP quote. As I cannot read Hebrew I cannot interpret the broader document myself effectively, and evaluate whether his opinion on this matter was accepted or rejected by the MKs. In any case, his opinion was given in Kneeset debates before the law was passed and the courts are relatively likely to discount it. I'm curious at to whether the committee returned to that issue at all.
6. Drork has provided me with a selection of photographs of 2D artwork, some by Alex Levac (a photographer who has had his work published in a number of books). The context provided indicates that the FOP being is exploited as oppposed to permission being sought. This matches up with references in the discussion above.

It is not totally conclusive, but I believe that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the law allows for a broad scope to FOP in Israel - including two dimensional work.

If anyone has an objection to any of my numbered points (as opposed to my conclusion) please talk about it at User talk:Nilfanion/Israel. All I really want here is for people to  Support or  Oppose, depending on if they agree with my interpretation or not. One thing I would say is that if there isn't a clear consensus that agrees with me then we ought to reject my interpretation - default in a no-consensus situation has to be to not accept the images.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"clearly covered" is very poor wording. Does it mean "clearly covered by intellectual property rights, and hence should not be here", or (as I suspect) "clearly covered by freedom of panorama, and hence acceptable"? Either way, this should be made clear. - Jmabel ! talk 21:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok fixed (sorry).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting takes place here aimed at reaching a consensus

To sum up the vote is on the sentence: "the law allows for a broad scope to FOP in Israel - including two dimensional work", i.e. the current position appearing in the policy page:

•  Oppose see User talk:Nilfanion/Israel#Kuiper's response to "Outside view" and User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support see my reply to Kuiper here and as Presenti is the leading Israeli expert on copyright Law for my brief summery of the Israeli Law see: Commons:Freedom of Panorama in Israel‎. Deror avi (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Damzow (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Yoavd (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Deror avi and Dr. Presanti's opinion. Kooritza (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support רוליג (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support GilCahana (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Deror avi and Dr. Presanti's opinion.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Deror avi and drork. --kippi70 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Hanay (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Golf Bravo (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose User:Pieter Kuiper seems to be right on this one. Sv1xv (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ijon (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Deror avi and drork. דוד שי (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kjetil_r 09:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The copyright law and policy must apply to the Kibutz Lobby as well. M.Lahanas (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The copyright law does apply to a Kibbutz lobby. This is a public place, hence FoP is applicable there. Drork (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Ldorfman (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support eytan6 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Deror avi and Dr. Presanti's opinion. Hidro (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is an extreme change in the law, that saps paintings of copyright. It violates international copyright law, IMO. Given the evidence we have, I don't think we can read the law that way, at least not until the legislature or courts make it clear that's the way it's being interpreted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Iconoclast (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Deror avi and various lawyers views presented here and throughout. MathKnight 17:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Apply the precautionary principle instead of doing wikilawyering Nillerdk (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Yuval Y § Chat § 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per my knowledge of how to interpret Israeli laws. Tomer A. 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Talking without voting resumes here

Tony Greenman in his book indicates that he believes "applied art" has a broad application--> Can you provide the quote and the page number, please ? Teofilo (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"applied art" has a broad application, though his phrasing is more ambiguous. This agrees with Dr Presenti--> Can you provide a quote and the corresponding page number from a Presenti book, showing that Presenti's view on 2D works is based on an interpretation of "applied art" ? If so, does Presenti suggest that while applied 2D art might be OK, non-applied 2D art remain strictly protected by copyright law? Teofilo (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Presenti says that the law allows 2D derivatives of "all artistic works" located in a public place. She uses the same Hebrew words as in the definition of artistic works in article 1. It would only exclude literary works. In my opinion, such a broad interpretation of the exception in article 23 is not compatible with the en:Berne three-step test that also Israel has signed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As explained before - this has nothing to do with the Bern convention, nor does it contradict Berne. Just as the fact the Itali and France protect architectural works and forbid photography, and the UK and US do not. It doesn't mean that the UK and US contradict Berne. And just as the fact that statues in public in the UK can be photographed and in the US they can not - again - nothing against Berne and nothing to do with it. Israel also allowes 2D work which is in public. Deror avi (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It remains to be seen what Greenman actually says, but there seems to be a disagreement, not an agreement between a "broad applied 2D art" supporter and an "all 2D art" supporter. "Broad" and "all" do not mean the same. Teofilo (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First it is not "applied art" but rather "useful art". And the only disagrement is whether the term includes 2D works or just 3D. As I mentioned above, with examples, the Courts have rulled before that photographs are "useful art". So the only remaining argument is whether paintings are included or not. Presanti, the leading Israeli expert, in her legal textbook sais it does. Greenman does not, but he does refer to "useful art" and explains that whatever is in the public view should remain in the public view allowing derivative work. Deror avi (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think Greenman is "broad". He just repeats the 3D categories mentioned in article 23. And he refers to these as "the works discussed" or something like that (Deror avi's translation is not accurate). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are the last one that can say something about translation, since you use google translate so frequently. Kooritza (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK in answer to Teofilo's questions (and to correct a stupid mistake I made in my original statement). Presenti's quote comes from page 1214-1215 of her Copyright Laws book. Greenman's quote comes from Chapter 6.5 of his book, but no detailed page ref has been provided. Afori's comes from the Kneeset debates on the issue (source).

Just to amplify my original views [and correct that mistake]:

1. Presenti is clearly in favour of a very broad interpretation. I do not believe that a respected lawyer would make a statement which is very different both from the text of the law and her own previous opinion on the matter (she did not make such a broad reaching statement in her previous book) without detailed reasoning. Therefore the surrounding text would likely provide evidence as to why she expressed her opinion in that way.
2. Greenman's quote is a just restatement of the law. I apologise for my initial take of this: I misread the operative part of the "important bit" as applying to "applied art" not "public place". On evidence provided I can conclude nothing about his opinion on the matter. Its possible he expresses an opinion on the scope of FOP elsewhere in his book but we have not that provided.
3. Afori's quote is just as clear as Presenti's, but in the opposite direction. What isn't as clear is how the MKs received that statement. His justification for that statement is not present in the parliamentary records provided.

I would appreciate high-quality translations of the quotes from a neutral source. However, its clear that the information that has not been provided is the really important part. In the case of Presenti, that's the justification for her opinion. That information would be as useful for us here as it was for her in compiling her book. In the case of Greenman, that additional info would indicate if he expresses an opinion which is of value to this discussion.

I apologise for misrepresenting Greenman's quote (proof you shouldn't edit when tired), I've struck that out and corrected it. I've also provided links to sources and the exact quotes in the summary.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Greenman's quote is not a restament of the Law, but an elaboration - he gives an explenation to the rational of the Law: "The placing thereof in a public place makes the works of art "part of the view". The public is entitled to view this works of art and enjoy them anyhow, therefore the Law allowes the provide this enjoyment also in indirect manner". This rational should be kept in mind when trying to understand the Law. In my view this is a clear support of the broader definition of the term. Deror avi (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason I softened my statement on that is Greenman says FOP applies to the 3 types of art listed in the law, as opposed to altering it to "all artistic works" like Presenti does. Therefore it depends how you interpret "applied/useful art". The follow-up statement only applies to the classes of work he has listed. It doesn't apply to any artistic works that are not useful nor does it apply to literary works. Pieter belives that there are many types of artistic work that are not useful, whilst I think I'm correct in saying that you believe almost all artistic works are useful. Therefore your interpretation of Greenman's statement depends on your interpretation of "applied / useful art" - it doesn't give indication as to Greenman's opinion of the term.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is really problematic that Deror avi repeats his inaccurate translation of Greenman. In that phrase, he does not use the Hebrew words for "works of art". He refers to "the works discussed", or something like that. So he refers back to the list of works mentioned in the law: architecture, sculpture, and applied art. He gives a standard rationale for the exemption - it would also be true in the UK or in Germany: stuff that is part of the permanent panorama might just as well be free for all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stop this ping-pong which seems to lead nowhere. We have better things to do. There is no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the images in question, and there is no reason to encourage Pieter Kuiper's provocative behavior, which is clearly not going to end. I urge Deror to leave the last remarks unanswered in order to bring this discussion to an end. Any deletion request based on Pieter Kuiper's attempt to interpret the Israeli law should be regarded as harassment and as an attempt of censorship. Drork (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Drork is censoring Deror avi... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I regard this last remark as an harassment. Another remark like that and I'll ask to block you. Drork (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a large Hebrew-speaking crowd supporting 2D FOP, but they do not contribute any links to web pages that support their opinion. So I continued searching. And although this is a bit of a challenge for me, I found an iteresting court case. It is about the photographer Amir Weinberg, who sued the maker of a medal with a portrait of Yitzhak Rabin (English article in Haaretz). The medal is shown here. It was this photo that had been used for the medal, also in this earlier logo of the Rabin Center, and here. The photographer gave many more examples of its use. It was certainly on permanent display at the Rabin Center. Yet the medal maker does not invoke FOP as far as I can see in the machine translation of part of the court protocol. My conclusion is that such a defense against a lawsuit for copyright infringement was not even worth trying in court. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion is unfounded and hasty, this case is from 2006, the new law is from 2007. 93.173.125.26 10:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2007 law was not supposed to change FOP. Deror avi has been trying to argue that this is a long-established right in Israel, already exposed in older editions of Presenti's book. But in an actual court case where it would have been useful, the defense lawyer was not using it. So there has never been a FOP for photography (not even for "applied photography" as in the Rabin Center logo). And there is no FOP for 2D now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read the judgement (it is not a protocole) carefuly at the original languge. That image was never displayed permenanlty publicly. On the contrary - it appeared on a logo (protected) in a newspaper a postage stamp and on a medal. It was never FOP - so Section 23 is irrelevant (the judgement deals with a completely different question - whether a "news photography" is protected as art or not). I would suggest that you stop trying to google translate languages you don't understand. This discussion is futile. And a last comment - that judgement has been appealed to the supreme Court and the appeal is still pending. Deror avi (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am quite convinced that this photo was on permanent display at the Rabin center. The Center used it as its logo. FOP would have been an obvious defense, if such reasoning would have had any remote chance of being credible to the court.

Your constant harping on my lack of skills in Hebrew is counterproductive: if I can find these arguments without a command of the language, it would be so much easier for a legal expert with good access to relevant texts in Law Reviews etcetera to refute what you are saying. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read the Judgement (in full, and not just the section you bring), as well as the decision in the appeal to the District Court and the motion for appeal to the Supreme Court. Have you? In all of them the FOP defence nor the equivelence of Section 23 in the 1911 Law is never mentioned. Nor is it states that the image was permenantly in display in the Rabin center. It is irrelevant. And your obsessivness is also odd. Deror avi (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Now you confirmed my impression that FOP was never mentioned in that case, thank you for checking that. Apparently, it was not even worthwhile arguing whether the portrait at the Rabin Center was permanently situated or not. It would not have mattered. FOP is indeed utterly irrelevant for 2D. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Aparently your english is not good so I will use simple words: In Israel, All works of art that are permenantly based in public locations can be photographed. All works of art - whether 2D or 3D. If it is not in public location permenantly it can not be photographed. A judgement relating to an infringment of a news photography which appeared on a sticker or a newspaper and was never not permenantly in a public location is not relevant to the FOP question or to section 23 of the Law. That is why the FOP section is not mentioned in the judgement. If you do not understand any of the words in this paragraph please contact me and I will explain it more simply. Deror avi (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter, I know for sure that you have no interest in promoting this project for the benefit of all of us. You are here to ruin this project, and you are quite successful in doing so. You manage to waste our time and energy in a way that makes me wonder if you do not treat the discussions on this site as a kind of grotesque amusement. Now I am going to explain (again) why I am attacking you like this: (1) You claim Hebrew speaking Israelis do not know their own country's law nor read their native tongue. Alternatively, you claim that Israeli users are here to mislead the rest of the users. Had I said Dutch people cannot understand the laws of the Kingdom of the Netherlands or that I understand text written in Dutch better than the Dutch users here, I would have been laughed at and then banned from this site. (2) You claim no reference sources were offered to you. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. All the references in the world had been offered. You keep looking for sources in a language you don't understand and force us to explain to you why these texts are irrelevant. I suppose you next step would be quoting from Hammurabi Code, and we will have to explain that copyrights never existed at that time, which you would regard as a biased unsatisfactory reply, of course. (3) Deror explained to you that FoP was not mentioned in the last text you dug up, nor does it say that the image in question was placed permanently in a public place. You say the fact that none of the issues relevant to this discussion proves your point. What's next? Saying that the Israeli Law of Return also proves your point? How about the law which established the New Sheqel as the official currency in lieu of the old Sheqel? Does it prove you point as well? I can offer you a huge pool of irrelevant statutes and court rulings. Apparently they would all prove your point being irrelevant to this discussion. 14:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drork (talk • contribs) (diff)

Back to the subject. The management of the Opera Tower building in Tel Aviv tried to forbid the amateur photographer Ziv Mizrahi to make photos of the building. This became known on the internet, and it led to a flash mob, asserting Freedom of Panorama. See blog entry in English and the Flickr set. Excellent, of course, I uploaded two of those photos to commons. But if the right to make photos of buildings on the street needs to be asserted, it is just not credible that Israeli law would permit anyone to market postcards of paintings in museums. Such a right does not exist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was an Israeli legislator who said: אל תען כסיל כאיוולתו פן תשווה לו גם אתה. Pieter, that means Tan dwaas om hem te vergelijken met Penn Caioolto U according to google.Deror avi (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Google translate has problems with the Book of Proverbs, probably because Biblical Hebrew lacks matres lectionis. "Antwoord den dwaas naar zijne dwaasheid niet."/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No - that is "תשובה השוטה לפי הטיפשות שלו" and not what I said. Deror avi (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you are wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Hebrew speakers might have noticed that Deror spelled the proverb according to Modern Hebrew norms, i.e. with immot qri'a (matres lectionis). This is a common habit when you are not sure the reader (or in this case the machine) is acquainted with the ancient spelling method. As you can see it didn't help Google much. Drork (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Pieter's remark about the Opera Tower in Tlv, remarkably demonstrates his way of thinking. According to him, if a bully blocks your way, it means your freedom of movement is contested and you have prove beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that you have the right to keep walking, otherwise the bully's claim becomes the law. That explains a lot about the way Mr. Kuiper behaves here. Drork (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Enough, Drork. Putting Kuiper's behavior aside here, every time this comes up, you decide to show up and verbally abuse him personally. It's obnoxious, annoying, and not appropriate behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper has been abusing me personally, as well as Deror and other Israeli users here. He repeatedly suggests that we act in bad faith and/or try to deceive other users, he repeatedly questions our integrity and our intelligence. I thought we deserved some protection from his behavior, but apparently you think I should be condemned for pointing out how grotesque this situation has become. So be it. Drork (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And gee, here I thought we were old enough not to think that "he started it!" was a reasonable answer. It's not about what he's doing; it's about what you're doing. If you want to ask for Commons:Arbitration or a like process, go for it. Just turning every discussion into complaints about Pieter Kuiper doesn't help anything, and doesn't make it look like he's the only one at fault.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"He started it" is NOT an acceptable approach. Everyone needs to stop behaving badly. This conversation represents a very big investment of time on the part of a lot of people to come to grips with a thorny issue, it's come closer than we have in a while, and I for one do not want it derailed with bickering. If exhortations to be mellow are not enough, stronger measures will be taken. This warning applies to multiple parties. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

here is a blog entry by Ron Almog about the new law. It steps through the law chapter by chapter, mainly commenting on the copyright situation for software. There is also a short section about article 23. For the exempted categories of works, it just cites the law: architecture, sculpture, and applied art. It goes on to say that the requirement of "permanent" is slightly relaxed in comparison with Mandate law, but that the word is not clearly defined. It also says that "public place" could have been worded better. Nothing here indicates a very broad FOP including 2D works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And nothing indicates the opposite either, but why to look at the blogs, why not to follow the low itself?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the text of the law indicates a FOP exemption for 2D works. Tamir Afori (who drafted the text, so he should know) stated that paintings were not included. There is only this strange statement in Sarah Presenti's book about FOP for all artistic works. My intention with searching the internet is to see if there is widespread support or some motivation for that opinion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another irrelevant source courtesy of Pieter Kuiper. Ron Almog does not present himself as a lawyer or jurist. He makes innocent non-authorized comments. He says nothing relevant to our subject here. He deplores the fact that the law does not define the terms "public place" and "permanently" (he says nothing about omanut shimushit, so he probably thinks this term is straightforward). The term "public place" is defined in court rulings, so there is no problem there. The term "permanently" is also quite straightforward. I am waiting anxiously to the next irrelevant source brought here by Mr. Kuiper. When we get to Hammurabi's laws we will know he exhausted to World Wide Web. Drork (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. In case you were not clear about whether I was talking to you as well as others, just above, I was. Contribute peacefully and constructively, please, without making disparaging remarks about others. ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned - blogs and personal opinions (such as Affori's) are not applicable in Court. The only appilcable quotes are those of leading experts - Dr. Presanti's. There is nothing in the Law that says that "Useful art" is only 3D. On the contrary. The Courts have rulled it is also 2D. Deror avi (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Presenti's opinion is her own only. She just expresses it, without references, without any reasoning. But Afori was speaking as the Government's expert in a meeting with Knesset members. He is brief, but he explains why paintings cannot be considered applied art - paintings are listed as a distinct category in the different genres in the law's definition of artistic works. If the protocol of that meeting would not be of interest to the court, Afori can be called as a witness. There is no doubt what he would say. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter, there is only one way in which your personal opinion can become compelling. You can sue one of the uploaders in an Israeli court and convince the local judge that you are right. You can try calling Afori as a witness (considering that the uploader would call Presenti and many other legal experts who do not share the view you advocate here so enthusiastically). If you lose, which is very likely, you'll probably have to pay the trial's expances. Are you going to take this trouble? If not (which is probably the case) you have no alternative but to trust the Israeli users here. And another word - anyone who let Pieter Kuiper drag this discussion forever while questionning other users' good faith and discernment, takes the rist of it beoming ugly. Ending this discussion is the right thing to do. Drork (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot sue, as I do not have copyright claims on any of these works. The point is whether commons considers photos of Chagalls and Lichtensteins in Israeli museums as free images. Can someone make postcards of those without permission? I think the postcard publisher would get an invoice with a claim for damages. Would you advise him to refuse to pay? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither you nor I nor anybody else here can advise anything, we are not jurists, and we do not offer legal advices. The question here is whether the Commons recognize the Israeli law as it recognizes any other local law, or whether the Commons make special rules when it comes to Israel. As mentioned above, photography is forbidden in most Israeli museums, and anyone who takes images despite the prohibition can be sued for violating contractual agreement with the museum's management. I doubt if any Israeli here would like to take this risk, unless the museum gives its consent, which is another story altogether. Furthermore, most paintings Chagalls and Lichtensteins are not permanently displayed in one place, so they are not part of FoP anyway. We are talking here only about Frescoes, wall paintings, wall carpets, mosaics, images fixed to walls or posters that are used for a single purpose in a single public place. All of these can be photographed, with the photograph distributed freely, according to the Israeli law. There are plenty of examples for such photographs in Israeli books, albums and magazines, and Nilfanion can confirm that, because I sent him some examples. Drork (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a tactical withdrawal from paintings. Is Drork now saying that File:Abba Yavniel.JPG should be deleted? And here is a CC Flicktr image of a Lichtenstein permanently displayed at the Tel Aviv Museum. It was custom made in 1989, fixed to the wall; is Drork going to upload it to Commons? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, when a museum allows photography, it, being the commercial copyright holder, allowes it knowing that the images may be reused (even as postcards). Deror avi (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please give a reference for this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think the museum is the copyright holder? If it is not, how does it sell postcards? It is you who should bring reference to the contratry. You keep mentioning File:Abba Yavniel.JPG - well - as I stated at the deletion vote which you started - the copyright holder (the current owner of the drawing who recieved the right from the artist) allowed upload to the commons - so it is irrelevant. Deror avi (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, in response to a remark I saw in the voting. The only person who does wikilawyering here is Pieter Kuiper. The Israeli law and common practical interpretation of the law is clear and does not leave much room for doubt. Pieter Kuiper has his doubts, so some Israeli users bothered to check, and recheck, and came up with the a calming answer. Pieter Kuiper refuses to accept it, and he keeps this debate alive for nothing. Now he thinks I'm making tactical moves, as if we were in war here. There is no tactics here, there is an Israeli law which applies for images taken within the Israeli border, and there is a user who thinks Israeli users are not trustworthy. Drork (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Deror avi: ownership of an original of a work of art does not automatically imply ownership of the right to make reproductions (reference: copyright 101). A museum will often need to negotiate about permission for selling postcards. The copyright owner may claim royalties. Israel is no exotic exception to this. The Israel Museum says that it owns and manages the copyright of four artists; for the host of other artists the museum maintains a database with contact information for clearing artists' copyrights (source). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The common practical interpretation of the law is not clear; your interpretation would deprive paintings of copyright. Buy a painting or print, hang it outside, and you can photograph and make exact copies of it to your heart's content. That can't be how the law is meant to be read, and without more evidence I don't think we should be reading it that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the law says. The condition is that the object, 2d or 3d, will be displayed permanently. If you take a painting that you have purchased from the artist and hangs it outside your house it is not free since it is only temporary. Kooritza (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Which misses the point; whether it's permanently fixed outside the house, or hung in an commercial building open to the public permanently, it's still a way for us take paintings that are supposedly copyrighted, make reasonably exact copies, and upload them to Commons. That strikes me as outside the intent of the lawmakers and international copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are the one who misses the point here. As "Kooritza" said, we are talking about works permanently displayed in a public place. There aren't too many paintings that qualify to this condition. Now, let's make one thing straight - the distinction between 2D and 3D works is irrelevant here. You try to impose foreign criteria on the Israeli law, which is not right. Each country has its laws and norms, and in Israel pictures of frescoes, murals, mosaics,wall carpets, permanently displayed posters and all kind of 2D works permanently displayed in public, are regularly published in books and magazines and no one ever questioned this habit. Furthermore, a leading legal expert wrote an authorized opinion saying this was perfectly legal. As mentioned above, most museums and galleries in Israel forbid photographing anyway. Many even demand leaving the cameras at the front desk. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the dilemma you raised will become practical. BTW, museums often display works whose copyrights expired. You probably won't see photographs of them here either due to the ban on photographing in most of the museum. Drork (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(after Edit conflict)No, that should be only in public place (museum etc.). It is clear when you read the law in Hebrew. I do hope that you are not hinting that I'm trying to turn commons into a place full of copyvio. I think that after over 92,000 edits and hundreds of articles (12 featured) in he.wiki I can be trusted when I'm saying in English what the Israeli law and a leading scholar has to say about this. The international copyright law isn't relevant, because the MK's knows how to draft the law without violating international agreements which were signed by the government. Kooritza (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If the MKs know how to draft the law without violating international agreements, then those agreements are relevant, as any interpretation of the law that violates those agreements is obviously wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the Law violates any agreement of Israel. When an artist donates a picture to a museum in Israel he should be aware of the Law - and as mentioned before, there is no difference in Israel between a 2D artwork and a 3D artwork - and as it is OK that a 3D artwork in the UK is free to be photographed and this is in no violation of any international agreement, so is the case for Israel (which allows photography of all artwork permenantly in public). Deror avi (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And when an artist sells the painting to an American who then donates it to an Israeli museum?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked a similar question. The answer that Deror avi gave was very surprising for a lawyer claiming to be familiar with copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As usuall Pieter Kuiper is talking nonsence. a sale agreement must be in writing - and therefore must adress the copyright issue specifically. If the sale includes the copyright then it is transfered. And when an artist sells the painting to an American who then donates it to an a UK municipality and places it in a centeral location - it can be freely photographed. And if that aristis donates the statue to a UK museum - its still can be freely photographed? what is the problem with it? The Israeli Law demands that the transfer of rights is in writing, so the artist or the donour of the artwork knows it has been transferred and there is no question about it. Any museum who creates postcards of an image is also the owner of the rights (and not the original artist). Deror avi (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A sale agreement must be in writing? Where? Since when? I bought a painting recently, with less fuss and formality than buying a can of soup at the supermarket. No receipt, no paperwork at all, simply cash and carry. A statue is fundamentally different here; the analogy would be complete if you could make an exact copy of the statue in a public place and sell that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This just shows you that the Law in different countries is different - in the UK there is no problem with photographing a statue in a public place (and so is New Ziland, Australia and Canada and Israel). Israel allows also other works of art. In Israel (as well as other commonwealth countries) a purchase agreement of a copyrighted work of art must be in writing. Therefore when a museum in Israel purchases a work of art (or is gifted one) there must be, according to Law, a written agreement in which it is clear that the museum (or any other person for that matter) is the owner of the copyrights. Thus the artists rights transfer to the purchaser, and if the purchased chooses to place the work of art permenantly in a public location - it is in fact free to be photographed. Deror avi (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You can easily purchase an artwork in the UK without a formal written contract (example). Purchasing the copyright to that artwork is a different matter. Ownership of an item is different to ownership of the intellectual rights of that property.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably, Deror avi misread something. Maybe a statement like: "for the purchaser of a painting to obtain the right to make postcards, a contract transferring copyright is necessary." Because also in Israel one can buy art at auctions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What you're doing here is getting into small corners, which is not the purpose of this discussion. You are discussing an unlikely event in which a person enters a museum with a good camera (with flash and good focus) and take pictures of paintings hung there without the permission of the museum. In most cases this would be impossible, because the guard would stop him. If he can get away with that, he might be sued by the museum for violating an unwritten agreement between them, and even more importantly - the chances that a copyrighted painting would be displayed permanently in the museum are quite slim. So what we have here is a theoretical case, by which you try to prove that all photographs of 2D works in Israel are illegal. This trick is called "ad-absurdum", bringing an absurd or unlikely example in order to dismiss an argument. Ad-absurdum is a well-known logical fallacy, so we'd better leave it and get to the point. BTW, the whole nature of this debate is "getting into small corners". The whole debate started from Pieter Kuiper's demand to delete any picture coming from Israel that depicts a 2D work. This is nonsense. The Israeli law does not forbid taking picture of 2D works permanently displayed in public places, and there is nothing in the international conventions that say it is not right. Surely there are borderline cases. As long as we all act in good faith, we can work them out. There is no need to order a sweeping ban on all photographs from Israel in order to account for the borderline cases. Drork (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)