[Foundation-l] PD in Israel

[Florence Devouard]

Only three board members have given their opinion for now. 1 is in favor 
of 3, and two in favor of 1. This said, I prefer having a legal advice 
on this. So, I consider the topic is currently pending. Hopefully, with 
an answer soon. Meanwhile, please be careful in tagging such images.

Ant

Yoni Weiden wrote:
> Looks like no decision has been made by the Foundation regarding such
> images. Please notify other projects what a decision has been reached.
> Theretofore, I shall follow the local copyright law as {{PD-Israel}} states.
> I expect Commons to act the same way and not delete such images until the
> Foundation says otherwise.
> Yoni
> 
> 
> 2007/5/7, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>:
> 
>> Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
>>
>>> Related to this, there is a discussion on Commons:
>>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Images_PD_outside_of_the_U.S._but_not_PD_in_the_U.S._.28URAA_restoration.29
>>> Maybe somebody from the Foundation is willing to comment there?
>>>
>>> Bryan
>>>
>>> On 5/6/07, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is there any possibility that the foundation represents it's insight on
>> the
>>>> PD-Israel issue? I want to be 100% sure that there are images that are
>> PD in
>>>> Israel but not PD in the US before I delete such images from the Hebrew
>>>> Wikipedia.
>>>>
>> Another thing that one might consider in this is the ruling at
>>
>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Itar-Tass_Russian_News_Agency_v._Russian_Kurier%2C_Inc._-_153_F.3d_82_%282d_Cir._1998%29
>>
>> This did rule that ownership of a copyright was ruled by the law of the
>> country of origin.  Ownership of a copyright also has duration of
>> copyright as one of its elements.  Thus it can be argued that the other
>> country's duration should apply.  It is not the Berne Convention the is
>> affecting the duration of copyright, since that would generate a life +
>> 50 years situation rather than the longer period that exists in many
>> other countries.
>>
>> Another interesting argument that can be made for restored works is that
>> they would be granted the protection available to US works on the basis
>> of the law at the time they were published.  A US work published in 1924
>> had to have its copyright renewed in 1952.  The same should apply to
>> restored foreign works.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>