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_govern… [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Itzik Edri <itzik(a)infra.co.il> wrote:

On 22 June 2014 08:30, Itzik Edri <itzik(a)infra.co.il> wrote: 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

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(a)halonetwork.net> wrote: -- André Engels, andreengels(a)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 . 2014-06-22 12:07 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>om>: -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D… 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/2… Jee On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 22/06/2014 17:10, Itzik Edri wrote: 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.

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(a)gmail.com>om>:

2014-06-22 18:10 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri <itzik(a)infra.co.il>il>: 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(a)wikimedia.de> wrote: 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_i… 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Us… 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 -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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(a)halonetwork.net> wrote:

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 23 June 2014 13:00, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: Nothing in the letter renounces copyrights held outside Israel. -- geni

On 23 June 2014 13:42, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote: 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/Us… 4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright 5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae