The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest on this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same person who deleted all the photos so far: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
Hard not to feel that the reason to this massive deletions and this kind of behavior does not cross the boundaries of URAA enforcement to probably more personal views...
The original letter can be found on Hebrew Wikipedia: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Itzik
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Itzik
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest on this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same person who deleted all the photos so far: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
The file was deleted because Hanay uploaded it as a self-authored work. This is obviously not the case, so the deletion is valid. Please refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:SCOPE and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:L
If Israeli law has an exemption for government works, then perhaps we can look at restoring it.
It saddens me that I am having to say this to the Chairman of Wikimedia Israel, because it truly seems to me that you don't know how Commons operates and what our mission is.
Cheers
Russavia
Well I am not an admin, but as on all other projects, you must play by the rules. I noticed the deletion notice for your letter claimed it was a "derivative work", implying that the file was uploaded as artwork. It either included a logo letterhead that has not previously been uploaded (see [1]) or it needed the PD-text license (see [2]) instead of whatever the default uploader slaps on (probably "own work").
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_governments_and_governm... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest on this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same person who deleted all the photos so far:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
Hard not to feel that the reason to this massive deletions and this kind of behavior does not cross the boundaries of URAA enforcement to probably more personal views...
The original letter can be found on Hebrew Wikipedia:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Itzik
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Well..
Actually, this is the formal letter from Israeli government official. So it is formal, governmental document. I don't know the Israeli law, but if Israel has a law which excludes official state documents from copyright this is obviously in public domain. The logo on top of the letter is an official emblem of Israel. See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Israel_%28Alternativ...
According to this "logic" COA of Israel should be deleted as well...
2014-06-22 10:03 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Well I am not an admin, but as on all other projects, you must play by the rules. I noticed the deletion notice for your letter claimed it was a "derivative work", implying that the file was uploaded as artwork. It either included a logo letterhead that has not previously been uploaded (see [1]) or it needed the PD-text license (see [2]) instead of whatever the default uploader slaps on (probably "own work").
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Logos_of_governments_and_governm... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest on this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same person who deleted all the photos so far:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
Hard not to feel that the reason to this massive deletions and this kind of behavior does not cross the boundaries of URAA enforcement to probably more personal views...
The original letter can be found on Hebrew Wikipedia:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Itzik
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 22 June 2014 08:30, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest on this photos
No it doesn't. It simply restates how the law works within Israel. Which we already know.
What we need is a statement that says that they regard the copyright expiration on government works (private works are a secondary problem) to be global.
that sounds like a rather simple statement to make. is there a reason the isreali govermmemt does not want to do that, or is this somenthing which follows autimatically?
Rupert Am 22.06.2014 11:22 schrieb "geni" geniice@gmail.com:
On 22 June 2014 08:30, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest
on
this photos
No it doesn't. It simply restates how the law works within Israel. Which we already know.
What we need is a statement that says that they regard the copyright expiration on government works (private works are a secondary problem) to be global.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 23 June 2014 07:31, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
that sounds like a rather simple statement to make. is there a reason the isreali govermmemt does not want to do that, or is this somenthing which follows autimatically?
As far as I'm aware they haven't been asked. Really all we need is an Israeli citizen to actual ask them.
Hi Geni,
I wonder when was the last time you, or any other person who responded till now requested his government to make a public statement - in any issue, not only related to this issue, and the government so quickly done that, exactly as he way them to do so - without a long process which involve 100 legal advisers, ministries, committee discussions and many others steps involve.
Itzik
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:01 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 June 2014 07:31, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
that sounds like a rather simple statement to make. is there a reason the isreali govermmemt does not want to do that, or is this somenthing which follows autimatically?
As far as I'm aware they haven't been asked. Really all we need is an Israeli citizen to actual ask them.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 23 June 2014 10:03, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Hi Geni,
I wonder when was the last time you, or any other person who responded till now requested his government to make a public statement - in any issue, not only related to this issue, and the government so quickly done that, exactly as he way them to do so - without a long process which involve 100 legal advisers, ministries, committee discussions and many others steps involve.
Probably the last time anyone filed a freedom of information request. For a direct example it would be the 7th of April with regards to a request about bank of England notes. See OTRS ticket # 2014041010009626
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is with the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli Government may still have some copyright protections. So while the contents of the letter are nice, they don't address the problem.
It seems to me that rather than insisting that the files are permitted to remain, a more fruitful avenue might be to use WMIL's contacts with the Israeli Government to licence these images anywhere where copyright might still exist under a very free licence like CC-0. That way even if URAA or some future copyright shenanigans places these images back under copyright, they're usable by anyone. This ought to satisfy even the most dogmatic Commons admin that the images are indeed free.
Cheers, Craig
On 22 June 2014 17:30, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest on this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same person who deleted all the photos so far:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
Hard not to feel that the reason to this massive deletions and this kind of behavior does not cross the boundaries of URAA enforcement to probably more personal views...
The original letter can be found on Hebrew Wikipedia:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Itzik
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
So you want them to have a letter "You are allowed to use these images that you are allowed to use" but if the letter says that the reason that they're allowed to use it is that they are allowed to use it, it is not valid.
Shouldn't we be welcoming free content rather than inventing far out reasons to think why they maybe in some way are not free and thus delete them?
Andre Engels
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is with the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli Government may still have some copyright protections. So while the contents of the letter are nice, they don't address the problem.
It seems to me that rather than insisting that the files are permitted to remain, a more fruitful avenue might be to use WMIL's contacts with the Israeli Government to licence these images anywhere where copyright might still exist under a very free licence like CC-0. That way even if URAA or some future copyright shenanigans places these images back under copyright, they're usable by anyone. This ought to satisfy even the most dogmatic Commons admin that the images are indeed free.
Cheers, Craig
On 22 June 2014 17:30, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest
on
this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same person who deleted all the photos so far:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
Hard not to feel that the reason to this massive deletions and this kind
of
behavior does not cross the boundaries of URAA enforcement to probably
more
personal views...
The original letter can be found on Hebrew Wikipedia:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Itzik
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It is a bit crazy :-) The use to be copyright holder of these files is Israeli goverment. But according to the goverment it does not claim any copyrights as it clearly stated that the these files are not copyrightable, and it is no longer copyright holder. One can have an assumption that next Israeli government may change its mind. But the government can change the mind even if it releases these pictures under CC-0 waiver. In most jurisdictions the licenses can be revoked and the non-revocable clauses in CC and GNU/FAL licenses have no any legal value.
I mean the absolute attitude of Commons towards copyright freedom of media hardly make any sense in most jurisdictions. It ignores many facts and is sticked to some others without clear reasons. This not an absolute as in absolute terms there is no any single media about which one can say it is free globally with 100% certainty, and also it is not any practical attitude really preventing our re-users from legal problems, as we mainly ignore non-copyright legal issues. This is rather a derivative of long discussions on Commons which are subject of group thinking syndrome, which made some arguments kind of dogma .
2014-06-22 12:07 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
So you want them to have a letter "You are allowed to use these images that you are allowed to use" but if the letter says that the reason that they're allowed to use it is that they are allowed to use it, it is not valid.
Shouldn't we be welcoming free content rather than inventing far out reasons to think why they maybe in some way are not free and thus delete them?
Andre Engels
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is with the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli Government may still have some copyright protections. So while the contents of the letter are nice, they don't address the problem.
It seems to me that rather than insisting that the files are permitted to remain, a more fruitful avenue might be to use WMIL's contacts with the Israeli Government to licence these images anywhere where copyright might still exist under a very free licence like CC-0. That way even if URAA or some future copyright shenanigans places these images back under copyright, they're usable by anyone. This ought to satisfy even the most dogmatic Commons admin that the images are indeed free.
Cheers, Craig
On 22 June 2014 17:30, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest
on
this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same person who deleted all the photos so far:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
Hard not to feel that the reason to this massive deletions and this kind
of
behavior does not cross the boundaries of URAA enforcement to probably
more
personal views...
The original letter can be found on Hebrew Wikipedia:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Itzik
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
2014-06-22 16:00 GMT+05:30 Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com:
It is a bit crazy :-) The use to be copyright holder of these files is Israeli goverment. But according to the goverment it does not claim any copyrights as it clearly stated that the these files are not copyrightable, and it is no longer copyright holder. One can have an assumption that next Israeli government may change its mind. But the government can change the mind even if it releases these pictures under CC-0 waiver. In most jurisdictions the licenses can be revoked and the non-revocable clauses in CC and GNU/FAL licenses have no any legal value.
I mean the absolute attitude of Commons towards copyright freedom of media hardly make any sense in most jurisdictions. It ignores many facts and is sticked to some others without clear reasons. This not an absolute as in absolute terms there is no any single media about which one can say it is free globally with 100% certainty, and also it is not any practical attitude really preventing our re-users from legal problems, as we mainly ignore non-copyright legal issues. This is rather a derivative of long discussions on Commons which are subject of group thinking syndrome, which made some arguments kind of dogma .
Yes, good point, and that's exactly what I am saying all the time. ;oD Nevertheless a number of admins and non-admins on Commons still insist that every files on Commons should be free globally with 100% certainty. I think this is a poor understanding of how copyright law works.
2014-06-22 12:07 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
So you want them to have a letter "You are allowed to use these images that you are allowed to use" but if the letter says that the reason that they're allowed to use it is that they are allowed to use it, it is not valid.
Shouldn't we be welcoming free content rather than inventing far out reasons to think why they maybe in some way are not free and thus delete them?
Yeah. I think we need to assume good faith, even from the Isreali government. ;oD
Anyway, I think that the matter was handled very poorly by Russavia, who started the deletion request. As I said there, a request to the IDF could have been sent before, and the DR open only later if a negative answer is received.
Regards,
Yann
Craig, et al
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is with the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli Government may still have some copyright protections.
You are misunderstanding completely the issue. There is no evidence that Israel has a PD exemption for such government works, as we see for say, Russia,[1] which allows for letters such as this to exist on Commons.[2]
It seems to me that rather than insisting that the files are permitted to remain, a more fruitful avenue might be to use WMIL's contacts with the Israeli Government to licence these images anywhere where copyright might still exist under a very free licence like CC-0. That way even if URAA or some future copyright shenanigans places these images back under copyright, they're usable by anyone. This ought to satisfy even the most dogmatic Commons admin that the images are indeed free.
I have told someone that what needs to occur is for the GPO to release their claims over copyright worldwide in relation to URAA. The reason for this, is the same reason that the Israeli Government would NEVER CC-0 licence their materials -- because it opens them up to parody, satire and other uses that they might not agree with -- and we need to protect re-users who wish to use materials for such purposes. That's the same reason that the Australian Commonwealth Parliament refuses to CC photos of MPs, in case you weren't aware.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-RU-exempt [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_letter_to_FIFA.jpg
I'm uncertain why CC-0 would be more beneficial than a statement that the government believes the photos to be in the public domain. The main difference I see is that a release is active, which might be out of the power of the civil servant, the statement is a matter of fact and thus passive.
Maybe you would insist that the Israeli govenment issues a statement that they will follow their own copyright law rather than the US copyright law? Seems like an open door to me, to be honest. (yeah yeah, i know this is an easy target for snarky anti-israel remarks - lets steer away from that here please)
I can understand this to be an issue with private non-government works from Israel, but I really don't see the point in government works that are considered PD in the country where they originate.
Either way, we're not going to resolve this discussion here - but I do get a better understanding of some of the frustration.
Lodewijk
2014-06-22 12:26 GMT+02:00 Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com:
Craig, et al
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is
with
the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli Government may still have some copyright protections.
You are misunderstanding completely the issue. There is no evidence that Israel has a PD exemption for such government works, as we see for say, Russia,[1] which allows for letters such as this to exist on Commons.[2]
It seems to me that rather than insisting that the files are permitted to remain, a more fruitful avenue might be to use WMIL's contacts with the Israeli Government to licence these images anywhere where copyright might still exist under a very free licence like CC-0. That way even if URAA
or
some future copyright shenanigans places these images back under
copyright,
they're usable by anyone. This ought to satisfy even the most dogmatic Commons admin that the images are indeed free.
I have told someone that what needs to occur is for the GPO to release their claims over copyright worldwide in relation to URAA. The reason for this, is the same reason that the Israeli Government would NEVER CC-0 licence their materials -- because it opens them up to parody, satire and other uses that they might not agree with -- and we need to protect re-users who wish to use materials for such purposes. That's the same reason that the Australian Commonwealth Parliament refuses to CC photos of MPs, in case you weren't aware.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-RU-exempt [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_letter_to_FIFA.jpg
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Russavia,
I am aware that that is the issue (and I was talking about the original problem images, not this letter). I'm a bit confused though about the parody/satire angle, my understanding is that a CC licence does not extinguish things such as moral rights that are not related to copyright. Also, I do find it a bit odd that the Israeli Ministry of Justice would be comfortable disclaiming any copyright to the image within Israel per their letter, but would be uncomfortable licencing them in other jurisdictions under a licence that does essentially the same thing. We can but only ask, and see what they say; if they say "no" for the reasons you outline then nothing has been lost. I do agree that the Australian Commonwealth is behind the curve as well here, but in my experience and with some honourable exceptions, most federal bureaucrats still conflate these issues with the unrelated matter of FOI law.
But, I guess what I'm trying to get at, is that if these images *are* useful, a more productive course of action than arguing about it on a mailing list would probably be to identify what steps can be taken in good faith to move them from a disputed copyright situation to a situation where everyone is comfortable that there are no problems with re-use. If all the energy that had gone into these threads and the various tit-for-tat nominations on Commons had gone into that instead, we'd probably already be halfway there.
Cheers, Craig
On 22 June 2014 20:26, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Craig, et al
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is
with
the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli Government may still have some copyright protections.
You are misunderstanding completely the issue. There is no evidence that Israel has a PD exemption for such government works, as we see for say, Russia,[1] which allows for letters such as this to exist on Commons.[2]
It seems to me that rather than insisting that the files are permitted to remain, a more fruitful avenue might be to use WMIL's contacts with the Israeli Government to licence these images anywhere where copyright might still exist under a very free licence like CC-0. That way even if URAA
or
some future copyright shenanigans places these images back under
copyright,
they're usable by anyone. This ought to satisfy even the most dogmatic Commons admin that the images are indeed free.
I have told someone that what needs to occur is for the GPO to release their claims over copyright worldwide in relation to URAA. The reason for this, is the same reason that the Israeli Government would NEVER CC-0 licence their materials -- because it opens them up to parody, satire and other uses that they might not agree with -- and we need to protect re-users who wish to use materials for such purposes. That's the same reason that the Australian Commonwealth Parliament refuses to CC photos of MPs, in case you weren't aware.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-RU-exempt [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_letter_to_FIFA.jpg
On 22 June 2014 12:08, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote: ...
parody/satire angle, my understanding is that a CC licence does not extinguish things such as moral rights that are not related to copyright.
This is fundamentally misleading. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29
If you have not read up on IP law, or are confused about copyright terms, I suggest having the discussion on-wiki rather than on an email list, where corrections like this either get skipped, leading to later readers thinking that these are factual statements, or we end up repeating basic copyright law endlessly.
Thanks, Fae
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Such a statement from GOI can't override US copyright law for all works originated from Israel. (as Geni said above)
But one thing they can do. They can make a statement that they have no plan to claim copyright for Govt works per URAA in USA. So all the works of Israel will become PD in USA too when they become PD in Israel.
I think this is the opinin expressed by Carl Lindberg at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/20...
Jee
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 June 2014 12:08, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote: ...
parody/satire angle, my understanding is that a CC licence does not extinguish things such as moral rights that are not related to copyright.
This is fundamentally misleading. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29
If you have not read up on IP law, or are confused about copyright terms, I suggest having the discussion on-wiki rather than on an email list, where corrections like this either get skipped, leading to later readers thinking that these are factual statements, or we end up repeating basic copyright law endlessly.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
With all the good faith, and even with the good connections of WMIL with the Israeli government - lets don't forget this it is still, a government, and it is not kind of "lets ask them and they will do it just because we are Wikimedia Commons" issue. It was hard enough to explain them the ridiculous situation we are facing right now. Don't forget It's took us 3 years to convince the government to release their public photos under cc-nc, and it was a huge win and successful advocacy work for our movement that never been done before.
I'm saying that in *my personal opinion* as Wikimedians, and not I'm representing WMIL (which will continue FULLY to support the efforts on this issue) or any other official role i'm holding: but to be honest, as the situation looks right now in the commons - I don't think the government of Israel, or any other government need to behave according to the commons admins and their personal actions and opinions. From the government point of view - the photos are available online, they are free, they are no longer under copyright and they welcome everyone to uses it. Many people are already using the photos on websites, Flickrs accounts and others photos services - if the commons want to write his one rules and interpretations, even when the WMF BOT and the WMF legal staff don't fully support their steps - this is the commons and the movement problem to handle - not the government that have many others issues to handle, as this is not easy to reach and implement decision - and it rellevent to every government in the world. They are not working for us.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Such a statement from GOI can't override US copyright law for all works originated from Israel. (as Geni said above)
But one thing they can do. They can make a statement that they have no plan to claim copyright for Govt works per URAA in USA. So all the works of Israel will become PD in USA too when they become PD in Israel.
I think this is the opinin expressed by Carl Lindberg at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/20...
Jee
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 June 2014 12:08, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote: ...
parody/satire angle, my understanding is that a CC licence does not extinguish things such as moral rights that are not related to
copyright.
This is fundamentally misleading. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29
If you have not read up on IP law, or are confused about copyright terms, I suggest having the discussion on-wiki rather than on an email list, where corrections like this either get skipped, leading to later readers thinking that these are factual statements, or we end up repeating basic copyright law endlessly.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 22/06/2014 17:10, Itzik Edri wrote:
Many people are already using the photos on websites, Flickrs accounts and others photos services
They had better not be using them on flickr accounts as flickr may delete the entire account, for infringing the flickr and Y! T&C. The issue being that flickr accounts should only contain material that the photographer has taken themselves, there is some leeway for old family photographs. Accounts that contain material that has been hoover up from around the web tend to get deleted.
https://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/
That includes material that is CC'd and also material where the photog has given explicit permission. The issue is that on flickr there are many places where a copyright notice is added that references the account. So if Fred Bloggs uploads John Doe's photograph, it will falsely be attributed as "Copyright Fred Bloggs" this attribution violates all CC licenses.
2014-06-22 18:10 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il:
I'm saying that in *my personal opinion* as Wikimedians, and not I'm representing WMIL (which will continue FULLY to support the efforts on this issue) or any other official role i'm holding: but to be honest, as the situation looks right now in the commons - I don't think the government of Israel, or any other government need to behave according to the commons admins and their personal actions and opinions. From the government point of view - the photos are available online, they are free, they are no longer under copyright and they welcome everyone to uses it. Many people are already using the photos on websites, Flickrs accounts and others photos services - if the commons want to write his one rules and interpretations, even when the WMF BOT and the WMF legal staff don't fully support their steps - this is the commons and the movement problem to handle - not the government that have many others issues to handle, as this is not easy to reach and implement decision - and it rellevent to every government in the world. They are not working for us.
I am absolutely agree with that (also as my personal opinion).
The government allows the very free use of it, the WMF legal staff and the BOT don't think the URAA should be used to delete photos on Commons without office action, but the Commons admins do so. This is a big frustration for all who spend stuff to Commons and their work and time for our projects.
Steffen
On 23 June 2014 09:48, Steffen Prößdorf steffen.proessdorf@wikimedia.de wrote:
I am absolutely agree with that (also as my personal opinion).
The government allows the very free use of it, the WMF legal staff and the BOT don't think the URAA should be used to delete photos on Commons without office action, but the Commons admins do so. This is a big frustration for all who spend stuff to Commons and their work and time for our projects.
As one of the more experienced Commons contributors, I'm going to spell out a hint. I attempted to highlight this in a more subtle way, before this email discussion went off on various tangents, I guess I was being too British.
FACTS
A. The April 2014 RFC[2] was closed with the firm statement "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR."
B. An RFC does not overrule policy, however the RFC does provide a specific community consensus as to the preferred process that must be followed to comply with policy.
C. Admins do not have free reign on Commons to delete whatever they fancy, they can *easily and speedily* (compared to other Wikimedia projects) be de-sysopped if they fail to follow policy or the community (not just other admins) feel they are abusing their powers.[1] Desysop requests can be raised by anyone, anyone can vote in them and a *majority consensus* rules, so "about 50% is sufficient to remove the admin". A preliminary discussion before creating the de-sysop request should be created at AN/U - which gives the admin fingered for disruption an opportunity to walk away or explain how they intent to comply with policy or offer a more harmonious approach.[3]
CONCLUSION
If substantial numbers of Commons community members feel that admins are failing to implement the RFC as stated, possibly by ignoring successful undeletion requests (a community consensus process) and ignoring the specific process agreed in the April RFC, then a single member of the same community (both admins and non-admins, and most readers of this email) can start the de-sysop process for any administrator on the grounds that they are abusing their powers.
Now, rather than moaning on this list, you can stick you head out of the window and start shouting,[4] or you can go to Commons and contribute to this great project.
Links 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/De-adminship 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im... 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... 4. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Network_%28film%29
PS Nobody can de-sysop me, just you try to create a de-sysop request and see what happens. :-)
Fae
Hoi, The Israeli government is clear in that they claim no copyright. A license can only be given when you claim a copyright.
How can you argue and from an US legal point of view and insist that another government is to claim copyright in order to give a license.. It will never be considered in a court of law because it is the Israeli government who would be seeking justice in a US court of law. It makes more sense for them to change their own law.
Really this whole thing is silly to the extreme. Thanks, Gerard
On 22 June 2014 11:56, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is with the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli Government may still have some copyright protections. So while the contents of the letter are nice, they don't address the problem.
It seems to me that rather than insisting that the files are permitted to remain, a more fruitful avenue might be to use WMIL's contacts with the Israeli Government to licence these images anywhere where copyright might still exist under a very free licence like CC-0. That way even if URAA or some future copyright shenanigans places these images back under copyright, they're usable by anyone. This ought to satisfy even the most dogmatic Commons admin that the images are indeed free.
Cheers, Craig
On 22 June 2014 17:30, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest
on
this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same person who deleted all the photos so far:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
Hard not to feel that the reason to this massive deletions and this kind
of
behavior does not cross the boundaries of URAA enforcement to probably
more
personal views...
The original letter can be found on Hebrew Wikipedia:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Itzik
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 23 June 2014 11:41, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Israeli government is clear in that they claim no copyright.
No they aren't.
How can you argue and from an US legal point of view and insist that another government is to claim copyright in order to give a license.. It will never be considered in a court of law because it is the Israeli government who would be seeking justice in a US court of law.
Are you under impression that governments can't do exactly that?
Hoi, I disagree
They can but it makes more sense for them to change their own law first. Thanks, Gerard
On 23 June 2014 13:42, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 June 2014 11:41, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The Israeli government is clear in that they claim no copyright.
No they aren't.
How can you argue and from an US legal point of view and insist that another government is to claim copyright in order to give a license.. It will never be considered in a court of law because it is the Israeli government who would be seeking justice in a US court of law.
Are you under impression that governments can't do exactly that? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In my opinion as soon the letter is submitted through OTRS, the same letter releases this content and defines that it's allowed to have it in Commons.
URAA extends the copyright, it doesn't block the possibility to renounce to the copyright.
Regards
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is with the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli Government may still have some copyright protections. So while the contents of the letter are nice, they don't address the problem.
It seems to me that rather than insisting that the files are permitted to remain, a more fruitful avenue might be to use WMIL's contacts with the Israeli Government to licence these images anywhere where copyright might still exist under a very free licence like CC-0. That way even if URAA or some future copyright shenanigans places these images back under copyright, they're usable by anyone. This ought to satisfy even the most dogmatic Commons admin that the images are indeed free.
Cheers, Craig
On 22 June 2014 17:30, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
The story continues.
WMIL uploaded a letter from the Ministry of Justice, addressed to the Commons Community, which confirm that the government don't have interest
on
this photos. And not surprising, he was deleted from Commoms by the same person who deleted all the photos so far:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
Hard not to feel that the reason to this massive deletions and this kind
of
behavior does not cross the boundaries of URAA enforcement to probably
more
personal views...
The original letter can be found on Hebrew Wikipedia:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7...
Itzik
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ministry_of_Justice%27s_of_Israel_re...
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some Commons contributors like to ask impossible requirements, and threaten to delete files if these are not met. We have now a case of famous pictures from the government of Israel and Israel Defense Forces.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matanya#Files_and_pages_that_we...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beba_Idels...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abba_Hushi...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aharon_Mes...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Avraham_Sh...
These are famous and valuable pictures, including two featured pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia. These files have already been deleted and restored 3 times. When the URAA issue was not convincing enough, a new reson for deletion was advanced: that publication details were not given. Anyone with 2 bits of common sense can understand that these famous pictures were published soon after they were taken. There is no reasonable doubt about that. In addition, publication is not a requirement for being in the public domain in Israel.
After I restored these images, I was threatem by LGA, who is a delete-only account:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use...
There, more contributors argue on this issue.
By asking absurb requirements about publication details, these contributors threaten the project as a whole. If insisting, it will lead people to upload pictures like these locally instead of Commons. Then the idea of a central repository for all Wikimedia projects is gone.
Instead of looking for a reason to destroy these files, they should try to find a reason to keep them.
Regards,
Yann
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 23 June 2014 13:00, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion as soon the letter is submitted through OTRS, the same letter releases this content and defines that it's allowed to have it in Commons.
URAA extends the copyright, it doesn't block the possibility to renounce to the copyright.
Nothing in the letter renounces copyrights held outside Israel.
The question is whether that is implicit, and whether that is necessary at all. I find the argument that for government works we only have to bother about the law of the source country, very persuasive.
2014-06-23 14:27 GMT+02:00 geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 23 June 2014 13:00, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion as soon the letter is submitted through OTRS, the same
letter
releases this content and defines that it's allowed to have it in
Commons.
URAA extends the copyright, it doesn't block the possibility to renounce
to
the copyright.
Nothing in the letter renounces copyrights held outside Israel.
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 23 June 2014 13:42, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
The question is whether that is implicit, and whether that is necessary at all. I find the argument that for government works we only have to bother about the law of the source country, very persuasive.
I can see no point in this discussion. Folks had every opportunity to give viewpoints during the RFC on Commons in April. No opinion in this list makes any tangible difference to the existing on-Commons RFC, on-Commons policies or published U.S. copyright law, even though it may be a good way of blowing off steam.
GUIDE TO PLACES TO COMPLAIN ON COMMONS AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE:
A. If anyone thinks that the April RFC was unclear as to the process that administrators should follow, they can create another.[1]
B. If anyone feels that a particular admin is misusing their powers, then AN/U is a good place to complain, where it might make a difference or ensure that admin publicly justifies their actions.[2][3]
C. A useful place to discuss copyright is the noticeboard on Commons for copyright, the advantage being that the same things do not get said several times over and where it is possible to correct something you write after you press 'send'.[4]
D. Become an admin and do it yourself, or de-sysop an admin you feel has misused their powers, using simple standard processes.[2][5]
Links 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment 2. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072926.html 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... 4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright 5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
Fae
I think following the opinion of Carl Lindberg is the best option [1]: "I would personally be happy about not having to delete governmental works which have expired in their own country... those always have felt different to me than privately-held copyrights."
Hope Fae will support me when I start a mass de-admin request followed by my self admin request. :)
Links: 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/20...
Jee
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 June 2014 13:42, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
The question is whether that is implicit, and whether that is necessary
at
all. I find the argument that for government works we only have to bother about the law of the source country, very persuasive.
I can see no point in this discussion. Folks had every opportunity to give viewpoints during the RFC on Commons in April. No opinion in this list makes any tangible difference to the existing on-Commons RFC, on-Commons policies or published U.S. copyright law, even though it may be a good way of blowing off steam.
GUIDE TO PLACES TO COMPLAIN ON COMMONS AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE:
A. If anyone thinks that the April RFC was unclear as to the process that administrators should follow, they can create another.[1]
B. If anyone feels that a particular admin is misusing their powers, then AN/U is a good place to complain, where it might make a difference or ensure that admin publicly justifies their actions.[2][3]
C. A useful place to discuss copyright is the noticeboard on Commons for copyright, the advantage being that the same things do not get said several times over and where it is possible to correct something you write after you press 'send'.[4]
D. Become an admin and do it yourself, or de-sysop an admin you feel has misused their powers, using simple standard processes.[2][5]
Links
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment
- http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072926.html
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Use... 4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright 5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org