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(a)live.com> wrote: