Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atzeret Dana MVI 5780.ogg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Atzeret_Dana_MVI_5780.ogg

[edit]

COM:DW - the lyrics and the music performed by Dana International are copyrighted. Also some other fragments from this performance:

Other artists:

/ Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

these are incidental bits of the songs - as there are no other ways to film the Atzerte, it is allowed by the Law. As before Pieter Kuiper actionjs seems more like a personal vendeta against Israeli pictures, and this case is no diference. Deror avi (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deror avi seems to be claiming {{Fair use}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not fair use - but acctualy waiver of rights by the artists and organizers in a public event. note that the actual lirics and music are protected, but incidental images (כל עוד שאין מדובר בפס קול) are allowed by the Law. Please note that when the artists address the public in words which are not original part of the song but rather a sort of speach - while the whole speach is protected (as any speach) short segments may be used as an incidental background according to the Law. Deror avi (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence for a waiver of rights (which seem unlikely anyway); I regard this as plain en:Bootleg recording. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing copy rigts with performance rights - two different sets of laws and of systems. This is not a performance but rather a polital ralley. According to Tony Grinman, in his book "Copyright Law" on page 895, an artists who agrees to perform in a public event which is filmed live on television, agrees also to the distribution of his performance, and in such a case to provision of Section 22 of the Law does not apply as the singing is incidental to the filming and not deliberate, and therefore it is allowed under Israeli Copyright Law, as well as the Isreali Artists Right (וק זכויות מבצעיםח(ץ Deror avi (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section 22 says: "The deliberate inclusion of a musical work, including its accompanying lyrics, or of a sound recording embodying such musical work, in another work, shall not be deemed to be an incidental use."
Tony Greenman (probably correct spelling) gives a kind of fair use exception to this rule for news media reporting about public events. But that does not give the attending public the right to make bootleg recordings of the performance, and sell audio cassettes or CD's of the songs. It does not give you the authority to license your recording for "redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again - your understanding of the Law is incorrect. It is not delebrate inclusion but incidental one, therefore, this section does not apply, and the photography or filming is allowed according to the Law. The issue of the filming is a contractual matter and not copyright matter. Deror avi (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kuiper, you are mistaken. Please read the full article, and not just the last sentence Ori~ (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section 22 is a de minimis provision, see COM:DM#Israel; if one reads all of 22, it becomes even clearer that there is almost no de minimis for music according to Israeli law. The inclusion of sound track of Dana International and of the other artists is not allowed in these video clips. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading the law incorrectly (as always). Only "The deliberate inclusion of Music" is not incidental. According to Israeli Law, such clips are allowed. I suggest that you deal with jursidictions you have some understanding at (if there are any), and leave the Israeli one alone. I am tiered of your biased prosicution of Israeli pictures. Deror avi (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer. You seem to be one, and your lawyering is exasperationg. I suggest you talk to a lawyer at Eshkolot. Maybe they can help you. You could also read the 1984 act on performers' rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, filming a concert is not incidental inclusion of music; it's to be expected that the lyrics would end up loud and clear on the soundtrack. The matter would be entirely different if someone was being interviewed in the vicinity of the concert and some music could be heard in the background. Besides, the video focuses on nothing else but the mood of the concert (nothing is happening). If the music is really accessory, why not remove the soundtrack entirely? –Tryphon☂ 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a concert but rather a political or social ralley at a public square, thus the music is incidental and not purposful. By they way - I have spoken with Eshkolot many times and on many subjects as part of my work, and I am sure Pieter misunderstood them (as he always does). Deror avi (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is not a concert but a documentation of a protest rally in the Rabin Sq of Tel Aviv a few days after two people were shot dead in a gay center nearby. You can see the "rainbow flags" which the demonstrator wave as part of the protest, and the fact that walk about in the open square rather than standing near the stage. The song is only partially recorded, from a random point to another random point, the crowd of demonstrators is at the focus of the film and their voices are heard (even if the singer's voice overcomes them due to the system of speakers). There is a special paragraph in the Israeli law which permits such a documentation and the reuse of it, what else do you want? Is this a copyright protection or a copyright phobia? Drork (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Deror avi, Ori, Drork. and the Israeli Law. ברוקולי (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete or simply mute the audio per Tryphon's comments. The inclusion of the the music in this video isn't incidental, it is by far the main element on the audio. Whilst section 22 says that "deliberate inclusion of a musical work, including its accompanying lyrics, or of a sound recording embodying such musical work, in another work, shall not be deemed to be an incidental use", that doesn't mean that if the music isn't included deliberately that it is fine, it may still not be simply incidental use of the work I would have thought. It has been suggested by Deror avi that "Only The deliberate inclusion of Music is not incidental" but Section 22 doesn't say that, just that deliberately including music can never be described as incidental. It doesn't say that only deliberate inclusion isn't incidental. The suggestion that "artists who agrees to perform in a public event which is filmed live on television, agrees also to the distribution of his performance" from Greenman is perhaps worthy of further investigation. What is the relevant law for example which he is referring to? If we might be able to clarify this point then I would be happy to reconsider my position. Adambro (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, fair use. Kameraad Pjotr 12:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Atzeret_Dana_MVI_5780.ogg&oldid=33520848"