Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Israel

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.

Template:FoP-Israel

[edit]

Just because a work is located in a public place at all doesn't mean its PD, period, in response to its incorrect usage on an images on coats of arms and flags, which in those cases are NOT an image of it in a public place. Besides, we don't do country based FOP templates. --ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'm not sure you read the text of the template thoroughly. The template cites the text of the Israeli relevant statute. FOP principle in Israel is very liberal, and it treats any creative work placed permanently in a public place almost as if it were in the public domain (it's not PD, but almost like a PD work). The template says just that, cites the text of the statute, and warns the reader than "almost PD" is not entirely PD (at the bottom of the template). The half PD/half green (C) icon delivers this message visually.
  2. About municipality emblems - the Israeli law doesn't say anything specific about the copyrights to which they are subject. There are non-copyright limitations for using them, but nothing clear about copyright limitations is said. However, since all municipality emblems are placed in public places, e.g. at the court of the city hall and in other similar places, they fall under the Israeli FOP principle. It is okay to copy them by photography, sketching, drawing, etc. because they are permanently displayed in public.
  3. We do have country-specific FOP templates, in case the generic template is not suitable. The first one was Template:FoP-France, because FOP in France is way more limited than described in the generic template. FOP in Israel is much more liberal than described in the generic Template:FOP, therefore it also requires a special template. I colored it green to show that it is more liberal than the light-blue generic template, and FoP-France has a red border to show it is more restricted. Drork (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People, there is no use in saying: it is confusing. I gave a detailed explanation above why it is needed, and I paid a lot of effort in checking what the law says and making a template which will be informative and prevent any misunderstandings. If you say it is confusing, then you say I failed and my efforts were in vain. That's okay, but I expect you suggest an alternative. A simple deletion is not the solution here. Drork (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And since you said the template is confusing, let me explain once again what the Israeli law says: if a creative work is placed permanently in a public place in Israel (whether indoors or outdoors), then anyone can take a picture of it, draw it, make a sketch of it or copy it in any visual way, and publish the copy. The law is not restricted to sculptures and buildings, and it is not restricted to copying by photography. You could say that placing a creative work in an Israeli public place is almost like releasing it to the public domain, however some rights are kept, most notably the moral rights. Now the ball is in your field - if not a special template, what would you suggest? Drork (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But moral rights can be quite strong in other countries too, I see nothing exceptional here. It is probably better if you would expand COM:FOP#Israel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you suggest we use Template:FOP in all cases. This is problematic, because this template is phrased quite vaguely. First of all. In the case of FOP-IL it is not believed, but known', it is not necessarily a derivative work (i.e. a photograph), it can also be a reproduction, it is not the case that it "may apply more broadly", we know it applies to all creative works, and so forth. Why leaving the user with a vague feeling that s/he is doing something dubious, when you can tell him plainly and simply what the relevant law (in this case the IL law) says? As I said, there are country-specific templates when giving the user specific information seems appropriate and useful, e.g. a special template for Swedish insignia, a special template for US banknotes, a special template for pictures taken from NASA. Why being vague when we can be clear cut? Is it just for the sake of saving a template? Drork (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added after an edit conflict: Expanding the PD-Israel template is wrong. FOP is not PD. For example, I cannot make multiple reproductions of a sculpture I saw in the street. I can take its picture, draw it, make a sketch of it, broadcast these visual depictions, but I still cannot reproduce it in masses without the artist's permission. That is perhaps the fine line between PD and FOP. Drork (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about expanding the PD-Israel template? I brought up COM:FOP#Israel, which is now just two lines. And Israeli FOP does not seen to apply to paintings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm an Israeli and I know it applies for paintings. I am not a lawyer, but as an Israeli citizens who occasionally walks around with a camera, and as a citizen who joined the parliament sessions about the new copyright law, I should be acquainted with such a basic principle of the Israeli law, especially when the phrasing of the law is so plain simple. This is why I brought it within the template - it is so simple, why not let anyone read it and get the idea? Drork (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The law pertains to copying of "an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art" (as quoted in this template), which does not include paintings. Then the template changes this to: "an architectural, sculptural or other creative work," which includes everything. Of course one can walk around with a camera and make photos of almost everything, but that is not what this law paragraph is about. So why this change in wording of what the law says? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am not a lawyer, and my answers here are not based on professional knowledge, but on my experience as a fairly educated Israeli citizen who keeps the law and read a few legal documents in his life. The copyright law defines different types of works and other related terms in its preamble. It does not define the term "applied art" although it uses the term in the paragraph about FOP. Since the term is not defined, one has to assume it is meant to be understood plainly without any sophisticated legal interpretations. If creating a statute as a decoration is a sort of applied art (as can be clearly understood), then designing an emblem or a flag to be used by the municipality, or creating a fresco on a public building's wall, or designing a clock to be placed on a building's tower etc. all seem to qualify as applied art. To be honest, I don't see what kind of creative works won't qualify here. If the law were talking about architectural works, then I'd assume applied art is something like building's plan, but since sculptures are also included, and since the preamble of the law includes "architectural work" in the list of "artistic works", then one has to assume that "applied art" refers to "creative works" in general and is not contrasted to "artistic work". Drork (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how laws normally should be read. A nicely designed clock would be in the category "applied art", which is a subset of "artistic work". The preamble has this definition: ""Artistic work" – including, drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works, photographic works and works of applied art."
There is freedom of panorama in Israel for some of these categories of artistic work: sculpture, architecture and applied art. This exception is not extended to the two-dimensional categories of artistic work like drawings, paintings, and photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, both readings are possible, but from my experience (and I'm not a lawyer) the one I suggested is the one followed in practice in Israel. Then again, please note that there is still no reason to delete this template. We argue about when exactly this template should be used, and this is a theoretical argument because so far, no one suggested it be used for paintings. Municipality emblems are not paintings. They are special designs meant to represent a local authority which are displayed in public in two or three dimensions, on walls, floors, flags, clothes, signs, documents, sewer holes' covers etc. This can certainly be regarded as a work of applied art. To sum it all up: (1) We need a special FOP template for Israel because FOP in Israel has its own scope, similar but not identical to other countries' FOP; (2) Whether or not paintings are included in the Israeli FOP scope, the current use of this template is okay, because it is used for pictures of buildings, sculptures and reproduction of official symbols which can be regarded as works of applied arts (3) If some corrections are needed in the template to make it more clear - they can be made at any time (4) We currently have many country-specific templates, especially for the PD category, but also for other categories. If there is an intention to generalize templates - that might be a good idea, but in the current system we have, having a country-specific FOP templates is useful.
  •  Keep Redrawing a coat of arms appearing in a public place is an appropriate application of FOP. -Nard the Bard 17:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Drork. I don't see any real reason to delete. Alonr (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - No need to delete per a precedent. Precedents aren't meant to be followed continuously. Suggestion would be to look at what it would fall under.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - If image taken in a public place in Britain can be requested for deletion since "there's no FOP about it in Britain", we can definably use localized FOP templates, since the FOP images aren't treated as same. As for the FOP in Israel, as I recall, images can be taken in public place as long as there's enough scenery to prove the picture is taken in a public place, and not taken from a copyrighted website, for example. Yuval Y § Chat § 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About using the scenery as a proof that the picture was taken in a public place - I don't see how it helps, because the Israeli law also permits drawing, sketching or reproducing the work in other visual ways. Furthermore, copying an image from a copyrighted site is forbidden even when the image was taken under the FOP principle. This is why we use two templates for such images - FOP template to show that taking the image was legal and PD/Attribution template to show that the photographer waived his rights on the image. Drork (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - this template is relevant very often, although regular CoA diagrams do not fall into the FoP category, and I'm not sure why people were tagging them as such. and there is no replacement license clarification in many instances where genetic licenses are unclear. I struck out my earlier comment because on more careful inspection, the law does allow what we are doing for coats of arms of cities. -- Ynhockey (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Dror convinced me. Gridge (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Kept. Per discussion above; having a template more specific than {{FOP}} seems beneficial, and the wording of the template has improved. The template is accurate enough and backed up by actual laws, so deletion is in no way necessary; remaining problems (if any) should be worked on on the template talk page. –Tryphon☂ 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:FoP-Israel&oldid=533937088"