Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 6139 tel tzafit.jpg

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:PikiWiki_Israel_6139_tel_tzafit.jpg

[edit]

No COM:FOP#Israel for writing, nor for drawings. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper, there is an ongoing debate which you started about the matter. And yet, you cannot wait before deleting another image. Are you going to calm yourself down and stop your crusade against images from Israel? Drork (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also your expert Deror avi agrees that text is not covered by FOP; yet you (or Pikiwiki) uploaded this image yesterday. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: §23 of the unoffical (yet made by the Israel Ministry of Justice) translation of Israel copyright law[1] explicitely mentions drawings in the "freedom of panorama" provisions. From the image one can assume that this board is situated permanently in public space. This leaves open only the text portion of this image. --Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, drawings are mentioned: one may make drawings or photos of architecture and sculpture. It does not permit making images of drawings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, you are right about the drawings issue. I re-read the legal text. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: Pieter Kuiper tries to enforce quite brutally his opinion about what is wrong and what is right regarding images from Israel (a country he never visited and whose language he does not speak). The debate that he himself opened about the subject is still going on. How much violence is Mr. Kuiper going to exert here? Drork (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ähem, sorry, but he was right in correcting my own mis-reading of the above mentioned legal text in regard to drawings. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper has completed his takeover of this project. Congratulations. He now possess the veto right for every image here, and his view is compelling. This is the meaning of what happens here now. Note that Pieter Kuiper targets only images from Israel. In the past he endorsed images of anti-Israeli activists. This is no longer the Wikimedia Commons. It is now the Pieter Kuiper Commons. I should congratulate him for this achievement. Drork (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Changes need to be taken into consideration. There is no readable text in the existing image. Moreover, it is unimaginable that descriptive text at a public site would be an issue. This deletion request is both out of date and nonsense and should be closed without any action being taken. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly changes made do need to be considered, I just got the impression from asking that is "this discussion to delete supposed to be funny" that you were talking about the initial nomination and hadn't realised the concerns raised in that nomination may have been addressed by cropping. However, Pieter Kuiper (07:34, 3 December 2009), suggested that the FOP applies to making drawings not photographs of drawings created by someone else, so the cropping doesn't seem to address all the concerns so it is appropriate that this deletion request remains open to allow this to be discussed. I don't think it would be appropriate to close the discussion just yet. Adambro (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kuiper is wrong. See here. Deror avi (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, please note:
  1. I had not seen the previous version of the image.
  2. Because there is no readable content, and because neither Hebrew letters nor words are copyrighted, then there is no violation.
  3. I would suggest that mindless deletion of images be stopped; and that, instead, a policy be based of the opinion of a lawyer, versed in this aspect of Israeli law, be obtained.
Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comment from Deror avi, I've not suggested nor do I necessarily believe that Kuiper is right. I am happy to admit I don't feel in a position to comment due to my lack of knowledge about these issues. All I am trying to do is to highlight that the changes that have been made might not address the concerns Kuiper has expressed so it wouldn't be appropriate to close this discussion in any rush because to do so wouldn't allow him to comment on the new version which may be helpful in this discussion.
I would thank Malcolm for clarifying a few points. Input from a lawyer familiar with Israeli law could be helpful but would never be definitive because only the courts could give us that so that be unlikely to resolve all the disputes, particularly since you could probably get a different interpretation of the same laws by just asking a different lawyer! Adambro (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still do not see any problem because there is no copyright holder. It seems a public sign, apparently erected by a government entity. The objection to the image is as absurd as saying that an image including a street sign, saying "Dizengoff Street", was a copyright violation. This whole thing seems, at best, silly. But, considering the traditionally marginalized nationality involved, some caution about making such a deletion seems justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Israeli law, the State (or more precisely one its branches, depending on the case), holds copyrights for any creative work created by one of its employees for the purpose of his work, or ordered by the State from any person. The State's copyright expire after 50 years. In this specific case, I doubt if the relevant authority even knows it possesses copyrights, and if so, it has nothing practical to do with these copyrights, but technically the textual content of the sign is copyrighted until 50 yeas elapse. I am not sure, though, that publishing a picture of the sign is a copyright violation, not only due to FoP, but also due to the principle of "de minis", and yet I trust Deror on this, because he has the necessary formal knowledge and the relevant experience. I am just talking out of my non-professional private researches. Drork (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, then every thing here [2] will need to be nominated for deletion also. Suite yourself. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete also the cropped version. There is no FOP in Israel for 2D, see User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel. But anyway, this photo of vandalized drawings of Crusaders is of low quality, not used, not educational, and out of project scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:CENSOR and WP:SOAP.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't just link to policies, please try to explain their relevance to the point you are trying to make so that it is actually clear what the point your are trying to make is. Adambro (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper decided to reinvent the Israeli law, and even wrote a page with a new copyright law for Israel. That's a service the Israeli citizens can do without. His claims were contradicted in the most elaborated way possible. As for project scope - Pieter Kuiper thinks venomous caricatures that call for violence against Israelis are educational and within scope, while any image coming from Israel or Israeli projects should be deleted. I can't help his state of mind, but I hope other users here reject his opinion.
As for Malcolm Schosha's question - not every text can be copyright protected. The text should be creative. A street's name is not a creative work, nor is a statement or a warning such as "turn left", "beware of the dog" or "this street is named after a famous writer". All street signs and road signs in Israel can be photographed per FoP and the fact that the texts on them are not creative. Drork (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the links are sufficient for discussion on this page which deals with the deletion of a particular article. But to expand a little
  1. WP:CENSOR. I think it problematic for an editor to try to arbitrate based of quality when other considerations apply. For instance, I was considering this image [3] yesterday. It certainly has no artistic merit, and is clearly antisemitic. But I did not nominate it for deletion because it makes it clear that antisemites exist in Italy, even if I wish it were not so. No point in trying to censor Commons.
  2. WP:SOAP. It appears to me that in comments on this page, and particularly in, User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel, there is an attempt to use Commons to soapbox a particular POV. The article, which violates all norms of WP:NPOV, should be deleted either by the user who created it, or by an administrator if necessary. Commons should not allow itself to become this user's soapbox
If more discussion of these issues is necessary, the discussion should be, in my view, moved to the administrator's noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make something clear - Pieter Kuiper endorsed contemporary venomous caricatures, not historical evidences or documentary material about racism. I wouldn't have mentioned the case, had he not brought up the "educational" and "scope" argument. If I sound blunt, it is because I am angry and I think I have every right to be angry. I feel I and some other people here have been abused. I sure hope this episode of FoP in Israel is behind us, having provided all possible evidence, but this whole affair is a dangerous precedence. I can just hope it won't be repeated. Drork (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could also make something clear. Every discussion which involves Pieter Kuiper is not a venue for you or anyone else to reiterate gripes about him. The converse is also true. Despite this, I would ask that Pieter doesn't remove such comments in the interests of transparency. Adambro (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per Commons:Freedom of Panorama in Israel: FOP broadens to "useful art" ("This section was written this way following lengthy debates amongst members of parliament in Israel who chose not to give a definition to the term ”useful art”.") — Xavier, 01:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what would be "useful" about this scratched drawing? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blanche Garde is an historical site of some importance, and this image documents that. Later, if better images of the site are uploaded to Commons, this image may become less important. At present, this is all that verifies the recognition the nation of Israel gives to the historical site.
By the way, the image is of a metal sign, with computer cut vinyl lettering. It is not a "drawing", but a metal sign. Such signs in public spaces, as this sign, are usually scratched. The defacement of ground level signs in public spaces is a problem that sign makers live with. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, out of project scope (not used, bad quality, educational use?) and text is a copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:PikiWiki_Israel_6139_tel_tzafit.jpg&oldid=164707375"