User talk:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel

In the case you google translated - Justice Solberg rulled that the wall is not an artwork (just covered with stones) and therefore the issue of copyright in general is irrelevant. (in any case is was 2D and not 3D). Deror avi (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That does not contradict what I wrote. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the US Trade Department: The view of the 2009 report is sort of irrelevant to the matter in hand. The fact that Israel doesn't protect pharmaceutical IP effectively (in the opinion of the US government) has little to do with FOP. However, previous reports may have something meaningful to say.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, piracy of business software and music are also areas of concern for American interests, and it is interesting to see that Yoram Lichtenstein tries to extend FOP to those types of works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The piracy concerns are more relevant (given Lichtenstien's view). However, I think that section would be more relevant if you can find a document when the US Govt said Israeli copyright provisions (either generally or specifically with respect to art) were inadequate. With respect to Presenti, I'd point out her view almost certainly has justification in her book, but that has not been provided on Commons. (I agree with you, just the statement is open for all sorts of legal trouble I can't believe a respected lawyer would say that without justifying it).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to art, the Americans are mainly (only?) concerned about the rights of the American entertainment industry. Their complaints are not primarily about the text of the law (afterall, the new law introduced an almost literal translation of American fair-use provisions - a clever Israeli countermeasure). There are some complaints about what the law does not forbid. But most complaints are about enforcement and about some court decisions (for example, the streaming video rebroadcasting mentioned below). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Three comments:

a. Stop using google translation - it doesn't become you.

b. Music files have nothing to do qith Section 23 of the Law, nor with the 2008 Law at all. and FOP (it is not "panorama" as it is never premenantly placed in a public location).

c. What you are saying is slander because Yoram Lichtenstein does not deal with FOP, nor with Section 23 of the Law nor with the 2008 Law at all. Lichtenstein's article deals with an opinion filed to the Haifa district court. I know not what was the outcome of the case and the decision of the Court - but whatever the Court decide should be the issue. Recently the Tel Aviv court gave a leangthy decision explaining why streaming is legal in Israel. Deror avi (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

a) Drork who provided the link but he did not give much of a translation, so I use Google.

c) Drork said that Lichtenstein was about FOP. And I agree. (But it was about the old law.)

b) Lichtenstein uses the same quote by Presenti about the Mandate-law FOP as you did. He wants to expand "public place" to such internet phenomena as eMule. I understand that this lawyer's opinion is a bit of an embarrassment for you. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said it is embarasing. Read it in cotext and with a proper translation. Deror avi (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Special 301 Report

I've made an update of the map 2009 Special 301 Report (World Map).png which you are using on your user site. Israel is no longer red in the updated 2010 Special 301 Report (World Map).png. Hope you'll enjoy it!--Nameless23 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The only country with "status pending" - interesting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

museums?

Hi Pieter, thank you for this essay. I am searching for the answer to the question if FOP applies to sculptures inside museums (like apparently FOP in UK does). Do you know anything about it? I did not find it in your text or in the other FOP#Israel texts. Thank you! --Saibo (Δ) 17:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It should apply to sculpture and to applied art. But it seems that many Israeli museums are quite restrictive with permissions to make photos for everything, also for stuff that is PD-old. In my opinion, there is no FoP for recent paintings in Israel. Drork and Deror avi disagree, but I challenged them to upload murals by Roy Lichtenstein, which they have not dared to do (the Lichtenstein estate is protective of their rights). Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pieter! Well, I am currently only interested in sculptures (namely File:Danziger, Itzhak, Nimrod, 1939.jpg) - it should be on dewp's main page in some days. So you would support adding {{FoP-Israel}} to the file's page? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That is right, I would have no objections. But the Israel Museum where this was made is one of those places that will not allow photography. Which does not affect copyright status here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Strange FOP rules for a German where FOP does not apply inside of any building. ;)

Photography prohibitions in museums are only the photographer's problem, if I see it correctly, yes - I have the same opinion on this. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If I read correctly, User:Deror avi explicitly says that FoP applies to museums, too - Commons:Freedom of Panorama in Israel. --Saibo (Δ) 23:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)