Open main menu

There is a long running dispute between Pieter Kuiper and a number of Israeli editors (including Deror avi, Drork and others), as well as certain other contributors, regarding Israeli copyright. I'm not endorsing the view of either side in this discussion, but I am attempting to establish where the dispute is occurring/has occurred.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add relevant pages to this page, but do not remove them if you consider them irrelevant.

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is my user page. My intent is for this page to be a statement of the issues, while discussion can be carried out on the talk page. Therefore I will move comments to the talk page and refactor this one as necessary.


Involved partiesEdit

I'd like the people who consider themselves involved to add their names here.

Current discussionsEdit

Past discussionsEdit

I think this discussion makes these folks involved/roped in (and it's not about Israel. Possibly relevant is that the work is about the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by the German gov't, and is in Germany.): ChrisiPK Elvey (me) Túrelio Denniss PeterSymonds --Elvey (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by DrorkEdit

I see two problems here:

  1. The extent of FOP in Israel - for me this problem is pretty much resolved. I think enough proofs have been brought to ascertain the applicability of the FOP principle in its Israeli version on 2D works.
  2. Pieter Kuiper's behavior. He acts as if he were the Commons' lawyer, and with all due respect, he does not have the necessary education and experience, especially when it comes to the laws of countries whose language he does not speak. The questions and doubts which he raises are most welcomed, and yet he must accept the answers provided to him in good faith and by people who are acquainted with the issue. Drork (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pieter's position is not the position of the Israeli government, and the fact that Mr. Kuiper thinks it is, results from the fact that he pretends to be an expert on Israeli issues, even though he lacks the very basic knowledge about the subject. I don't know what his motivations are, but the fact is that he pretends to be something which he is not. Drork (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific casesEdit

This is a fresco on a church's wall. According to the Israeli law, a church is a public place. The fresco is therefore an artistic work permanently displayed in a public place. The fact that a fresco is 2D-work does not change the state of affairs. Pieter Kuiper claims it does, but he cannot base this claim.
According to Pieter Kuiper's deletion request, the contributer did not provide an accurate date for the photograph. Nevertheless, there is a good reason to believe that the copyrights on this image have expired. Pieter Kuiper did not bother to check this. He rushed into asking a deletion. A user must assume good faith help the uploader to correct unfortunate mistakes before asking deletion.
Another deletion request by Pieter Kuiper on the basis of "out of project's scope". He did not explain why it is out of scope.
This is a complicated case that need further examination. The problem is that Pieter Kuiper pretended to know all about the Israeli copyright law, and quoted an irrelevant article of the statute. Had he asked an Israeli user, he would have been directed to the correct article and save a lot of time and energy in solving this problem.
This is a case in which an uploader regretted relinquishing his copyrights, and asked to revoke his decision. Pieter Kuiper immediately assumed that he was not the copyright holder in violation of the "assume good faith" principle. The final decision was to reject the uploader request, but there was no need to question the uploader's good faith and lawful behavior.
Again, Pieter Kuiper gives his own interpretation to the Israeli FOP rule.
Pieter Kuiper suggested this picture was out of scope, without providing a good explanation.
There is no strict rule about the copyrights on official insignia in Israel, but since they are all displayed permanently in public places, they are covered by the Israeli FOP rule. Pieter Kuiper refuses to accept this.
This is a classical example of the "de minis" principle which is explicitly introduced in the Israeli copyright statute. For some reason, Pieter Kuiper was not convinced that this principle existed in Israel.

Statement by Pieter KuiperEdit

Summary of position at User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel

I am not ideologically involved, and I am not a copyright activist. I am just reading what it says in the Israeli copyright law. And I know I am reading right because I found about three weeks ago explicit statements by an expert at the Israeli Department of Justice. I have only communicated the position of the Israeli government on this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Deror aviEdit

Summary of position at Commons:Freedom of Panorama in Israel

The current statment here is based on the Law and writings of the leading Israeli scholar on the matter. A personal opinion of a government employee (which is contrary to the opinion of the members of Parlement who voted on the Law is irrelevant). Deror avi (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pieter's summary is completely wrong, wrongly quoting judgements which are irrelvant. Use of google translation results in horible mistakes and misunderstandings. Deror avi (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


Edits to COM:FOPEdit

  • 29 January 2008

Deror avi amends COM:FOP to reference new Israeli law [1]

  • 18 June 2008

Vipersnake151 marks the Israeli section with {{OK}}. [2]

  • 8 June 2009

Deror avi inserts section attempting to define "applied art". [3]

  • 9 June

Pieter Kuiper reverts the addition, then Drork reinstates it.[4] [5]

  • 28 August

Teofilo removes "unreferenced statement. [6]

  • 29 August

Deror avi reverts Teofilo, then Pieter Kuiper removes again. [7] [8]

  • 16 September

Deror avi reinserts statement. [9] Pieter Kuiper then attributes statement to Deror, who then modifies it again to attribute to Dr Presenti.[10][11]

  • 24 October

Pieter Kuiper removes the statement and Deror avi reverts. [12][13]

  • 28 October

84user marks the Israeli section as in dispute. [14]

  • 29 October

Nard the Bard reverts 84user and also removes the statement again. Deror avi reverts and reinstates the statement [15][16]

  • 15 November

Pieter Kuiper again removes the statement. [17]

  • 19 November

Kippi70 alters the text and provides link to English translation.[18]

  • 22-27 November

Deror avi reinserts the statement.[19] Pieter Kuiper removes statement 3 times ([20][21][22]) and Nard the Bard once([23]), while ברוקולי replaces it 3 times ([24][25][26]) and Mbz1 replaces it once ([27]).

  • 27 November. Mitchazenia semi-protects the page for 2 weeks. Nilfanion increases to full protection until 11 December.[28] The page is protected with the text.

Edits to CT:FOPEdit

  • 4 June

Drork queries an old question regarding FOP in Israel.[29]

  • 8 June

Pieter Kuiper queries the addition of the "applied art" section.[30]

  • 9 June

Deror avi firsts provides the direct quote from Dr Presenti's book.[31]

  • 14 July

Okedem provides an English language translation of the quote, which all involved accept as accurate.[32]

  • 27 November

Nilfanion notifies talk page of protection of main page. [33]

Image summmaryEdit

This table is to list both any files mentioned above, or files tagged with {{FoP-Israel}} (list). All files above should be included, but only "interesting" images tagged with the template please: Many are likely to be sculpture or architecture that are clearly ok under FOP

Files identified should be included here. They should then be judged according to the 2 interpretations of FOP law:

  1. Excluding 2D- Pieter's interpretation, in which "applied art" means applied art and excludes 2D work.
  2. Broad - Deror avi's, Drork's (and so on) interpretation, in which "useful art" means any "useful art". The Law itself makes no distinction between 2D and 3D, and Israeli Courts have rulled in the past (with regards to other issues) that such a distinction should not be made.

They should be marked with {{Ok}} or {{NotOK}} accordingly. Notes should contain any pertinent information.

Image Thumbnail Excluding 2D Broad Notes
File:Israel-Yad Vashem Sculpture.jpg    OK  OK Permanently placed sculpture
File:Drawing in Domus Galilaeae church.jpg 100px   Not OK  OK Painting
[[:]]  OK the 3D effect is not much to worry about here Depends if permenantly in a public place. Photo of a plaque that is not strictly 2D; the 2D design probably exempt as in "Official Publications"
File:Flag of Jerusalem.svg    OK, exempt according to article 6, Official Publications  OK - but irrelevant. OK because it is part of Legislation (it appears in Regulations) on which there is no copyright Not a photograph, FoP irrelevant
File:Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Nahmanides) - Wall painting in Acre, Israel.jpg     Not OK  OK Painting
File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG 100px   Not OK 2D, not permanent  OK, unlike a commercial, which is moved from one place to another and is copyrighted, this is a municipal sign celebrating a one time event and therefore can be considered permanent as it probably has no other use. There are several examples of similar images in books and magazines with copyrights reserved only to the magazine or the photographer and not to the creator of the depicted poster.
File:HaMakhtesh HaGadol IMG 5985.jpg     Not OK maps are distinct from the category "applied art"  OK maps are "useful art"
File:EAC IMG 6549.JPG     Not OK 2D  OK
File:Denmark Square 2.jpg     Not OK Writing is literary work, not applied art   Not OK Writing is literary work, not useful art The picture could be regarded okay per "de minis", especially if the text can be blurred.
File:Mordechai Gumpel Holon.JPG     Not OK Recent mosaic on a building exterior  OK Mosaic is not exactly a 2D work. It can be regarded as a sculptural work, especially when the definitions are fuzzy.
File:Annunciation IMG 3057.JPG   and all other images here  OK
File:4190-20080119-0618UTC--nazareth-church-of-the-annunciation-front-door.jpg    OK  OK
File:Ovest0081.jpg   and all other such images here  OK
File:Israeli independence day stamp.jpg 100px   Not OK; stamps are not permanently placed; 2D   Not OK (okay for stamps issued more than 50 years ago). An updated version of the postal services statute determines that the rights on stamps are always reserved to the State. The State's copyrights expire after 50 years, if it is the first copyright holder, which is the case here by definition.