The European Parliament is set to remove "Freedom of Panorama"
See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Three_weeks_to_save_...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015...
Sorry to highlight this, but the PR message is misleading and could confuse the general public. I think you mean to stay something like "3 weeks to stop the FoP in Europe bill".
There is no "good" FoP in Europe to save, and the proposed text going before the European Parliament is fixed (the lobbyists already lost), so there is no alternate text which could create a FoP in Europe. All that can be fought for is to keep the current system, which is probably a better outcome for open knowledge than the proposed harmonization.
Fae
On 19 June 2015 at 17:32, Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-wiki@live.com wrote:
The European Parliament is set to remove "Freedom of Panorama"
See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Three_weeks_to_save_...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi Fae,
Unless you have better sources than I have, what you write isn't true.
the proposed text going before the European Parliament is fixed (the lobbyists already lost),
Not true.
Simple deletion of the clause would be one option; but I understand there is also a fair chance of a cross-party amendment. This is still being scoped out, but it might eg harmonise FoP for buildings, extending to public works of art at the discretion of member states, conditional on rights of attribution, and respect for the architect/sculptor's moral rights.
But at the very least, we need to get over the message to MEPs that this clause is bad; and that "non-commercial" is not enough (and would have nasty consequences).
-- James.
On 19/06/2015 17:47, Fæ wrote:
Sorry to highlight this, but the PR message is misleading and could confuse the general public. I think you mean to stay something like "3 weeks to stop the FoP in Europe bill".
There is no "good" FoP in Europe to save, and the proposed text going before the European Parliament is fixed (the lobbyists already lost), so there is no alternate text which could create a FoP in Europe. All that can be fought for is to keep the current system, which is probably a better outcome for open knowledge than the proposed harmonization.
Fae
On 19 June 2015 at 17:32, Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-wiki@live.com wrote:
The European Parliament is set to remove "Freedom of Panorama"
See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Three_weeks_to_save_...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Secondly, even such Freedom of Panorama as there already is in Europe -- such as section 62 CDPA in the UK -- is threatened if the European Commission goes for "non-commercial use" as a basis for harmonisation, on the back of an endorsement of that view by MEPs.
(On the other hand if MEPs throw out "non-commercial use only", there is a some chance the Commission will go for broader harmonisation).
If one wants MEPs, and potentially governments down the line, to stand up for the likes of section 62, we have to make the case *now* as to why it is important.
-- James.
On 19/06/2015 18:07, James Heald wrote:
Hi Fae,
Unless you have better sources than I have, what you write isn't true.
the proposed text going before the European Parliament is fixed (the lobbyists already lost),
Not true.
Simple deletion of the clause would be one option; but I understand there is also a fair chance of a cross-party amendment. This is still being scoped out, but it might eg harmonise FoP for buildings, extending to public works of art at the discretion of member states, conditional on rights of attribution, and respect for the architect/sculptor's moral rights.
But at the very least, we need to get over the message to MEPs that this clause is bad; and that "non-commercial" is not enough (and would have nasty consequences).
-- James.
On 19/06/2015 17:47, Fæ wrote:
Sorry to highlight this, but the PR message is misleading and could confuse the general public. I think you mean to stay something like "3 weeks to stop the FoP in Europe bill".
There is no "good" FoP in Europe to save, and the proposed text going before the European Parliament is fixed (the lobbyists already lost), so there is no alternate text which could create a FoP in Europe. All that can be fought for is to keep the current system, which is probably a better outcome for open knowledge than the proposed harmonization.
Fae
On 19 June 2015 at 17:32, Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-wiki@live.com wrote:
The European Parliament is set to remove "Freedom of Panorama"
See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Three_weeks_to_save_...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Fæ, 19/06/2015 18:47:
There is no "good" FoP in Europe to save
Exception 5(3)(h) does exist, or there would be no FOP anywhere. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HT...
Nemo
Here is currently a petition: https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-of-photography...
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:41:05 +0200 From: nemowiki@gmail.com To: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Freedom of Panorama in danger!
Fæ, 19/06/2015 18:47:
There is no "good" FoP in Europe to save
Exception 5(3)(h) does exist, or there would be no FOP anywhere. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HT...
Nemo
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l