A new consultation focusing exclusively on Freedom of Panorama and a
rebranded ancillary copyright proposal.
This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
New consultation: After a stakeholder dialogue, a consultation, a
communication and several postponements the copyright reform proposal is
again… postponed. From July to September. The reason? Another consultation!
 The exciting part for us is that the Commission is zeroing in on two
subjects: Freedom of Panorama and Ancillary Copyright (which they claim is
not actually ancillary copyright). Sadly, these two should have been the
issues getting less attention in an ambitious reform approach. The lack of
courage was even been criticised by the upper house of the German
Freedom of Panorama: On the bright side I have to praise the Copyright Unit
for producing a very straightforward and well-structured consultation. The
questions are clear and designed to sample the entire scale of opinions
from “don’t touch anything” over “NC is enough” to “we need the full
exception everywhere”. We will work on our own answers that chapters and
volunteers are invited to re-mix and re-use. The trick will be to provide
concrete examples of problems we’ve experienced.  We will also join
forces with like-minded organisations to prepare a full answering guide for
the general public.  Other than that it would be very helpful to get
industry groups and authors (think photographers, architects) to answer the
survey supporting a full exception. This is something the national groups
can be of great help with.
Ancillary copyright: The second part of the new consultation is about a
“neighbouring right to publishers”, or as the publishers themselves prefer
to call it now, a “publishers’ right in the digital age”. 
Interestingly, their not-ancillary-copyright-ancillary-copyright campaign
site went live hours after the Commission published the consultation. Which
is pretty fast for designing an entire campaign. Or did they already know
IPRED Consultation: Since the “Platforms Consultation”  apparently
wasn’t enough, we have until mid-April to participate in another
consultation dealing with the liability of internet platforms.  Still,
compared to the first one, this time around the questions are much more
coherent, so another HT to the units. Our answers will be of the same
tenor: liability protection is a condicio sine qua non for online
Portability: ALDE’s digital superstar and our favourite MEP Jean-Marie
Cavada has been appointed as rapporteur on portability by the Legal Affairs
committee.  I for one prefer to focus on two positive aspects: 1. Mr.
Cavada is less likely to be rapporteur on another dossier coming soon. 2.
We didn’t have to call him out ourselves on his past positioning. 
EU-Ukraine Treaty: The EU and Ukraine are about to go ahead with their
Association agreement , which is something like a free trade agreement
++. Before it can be ratified, the Netherlands (but strangely this time not
Ireland) have to approve of it in a referendum next week.  The full
text of the agreement can be a rather boring read  , but the IPR
provisions include fixing copyright term lengths to lifelong plus 70
(Article 162), exporting copyright for software and database rights
(Article 158).  These are not new to EU law, but including them in
international agreements means, that the EU is limiting its freedom to
reform that part of the acquis.
CH Copyright: It appears Switzerland will not wait for others to update
their copyright frameworks first. There is a open consultation by their
Federal IP Institute.  As Freedom of Panorama is already a given,
Wikimedia CH is focusing on open data and orphan works.
Freedom of Panorama and “Picture Tax” in France: Similar to the EC's
realpolitik gamble, in France FoP was also attached to a type of
neighbouring right for publishers and collecting societies. This had parts
of the industry really worried for a while  but was finally dropped
during the second reading in the Assemblée nationale. Wikimédia France is
meanwhile running a campaign site  and a petition  in an attempt to
punch a full FoP exception into the Sénat’s ammendements.
Open Science Policy Platform: The European Commission is establishing an
expert group on open science policies.  Daniel Mietchen has applied to
participate in order to bring the Free Knowledge point of view to the
Workshop Prague: Wikimedia (me and WMCZ), the Czech open education
organisation Eduin  and Communia  are organising a “Schoof of
Rock(ing) EU Copyright” workshop in Prague on the 7th.  We are
expecting to train 15-20 volunteer activists in effective free knowledge
WMBGUG: Wikimedians of Bulgaria have now signed the Free Knowledge Advocacy
Group EU’s (we really need to rebrand, you guys) Statement of Intent. 
We now have 19 European Wikimedia groups on board.
We just wanted to give you a heads up about the WMF legal/policy activities
at RightsCon <https://www.rightscon.org/> tomorrow (March 30) and later
this week in San Francisco:
1. Wednesday, 2:30 PM PDT - *Breaking Barriers: New Frontiers of
Connectivity and Access *(panel featuring *Adele Vrana *and* Stephane
Coillet-Matillon *from Kiwix)
2. Wednesday, 5:15 PM PDT - Lightning Talks: Access to Information and
Censorship Issues - *You Gotta Fight for Your Right... to Edit *(lightning
talk given by *Stephen LaPorte*)
3. Thursday, 9:30 AM PDT - *Preserving Free Speech: A Practical Privacy
Approach *(panel featuring *Michelle Paulson*)
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that there will be streaming/recording,
but we will update if there is. And we'll also try to tweet from the
conference here <https://twitter.com/wikimediapolicy>.
Public Policy Manager
149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
This couldn't have been a better example  if we had dreamt it up it
ourselves. I know most people's Bulgarian on this list is limited, so I'll
try to provide the moments:
- An old house by fmaous Bulgarian turn-of-the-century architect Gerogi
Fingov in the centre of Sofia is slowly decaying.
- The house is categorised as a landmark and protected.
- The owners are suspected want the house break down beyond repair, so
it becomes dnagerous for the public and they are allowed to tear it down
and build a highrise. (Common scheme in Bulgaria the past two decades, but
that's a different issue.)
- The municipality is not getting active, at least not effectively, and
there is a public outcry abou this. Corruption is often mentioned. (This
too has happened many times in Sofia, but is also a different issue.)
- People start taking photographs of the house and posting them on
social media, newspaper articles are written. There is a campaign to save
this and other landmarks.
- The owners of the house send a cease-and-deist letter to one of the
more famous photographers whose pictures have been most commonly used in
media and online to take down all the pictures of the house.
- He complies, saying that he has no time/energy/resources for this
Theoretically at least news outlets could claim the "news" exception, but
everyone else could now fear to get a notice if they continue with the
campaign to save architectural landmarks.
I will contact the photographer.
I came across this paper on the Right to be Forgotten in the EU (via
And I'm curious to read your thoughts on it.
Have a great weekend, everybody!
Public Policy Manager
149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
The European Commission's consultation on the enforcement of intellectual
property rights is due on 15 April.  The main goal for us here will be
to avoid increasing a platform’s responsibility to monitor and remove UCG.
We are currently starting to work on our responses , which will be in
line with the answers submitted to the related "Platforms Consultation".
One question is, however, which category Wikimedia fits in. The Commission
wants everyone to chose one of the following roles applying to them:
“citizens, consumers and civil society”, "rightsholder", "member of
judiciary or lawyer", “intermediary” or "public authority". Depending on
the hat you pick you get a slightly different set of questions. It seems
apparent that we could fit into at least two or even three of the these.
We had a similar puzzle last time and solved it by having the FKAGEU
submitting  as civil society and the WMF sending in a registered letter
emphasising the importance of intermediary protection. Such an approach is
also possible this time around, but I wanted to check back with the group
on what your thoughts are. Having several movement entities playing
different roles might actually be an advantage here.
NB: Not to confuse things, we're still waiting for the consultation that
will include copyright exceptions. This is not it.
Just a quick note that "our" consultation  is now live. I will set up a
Meta-Wiki page briefly and start working on an answering guide.
What would be helpful is to contact other groups (especially photographers
and architects) who would be sympathetic to our cause to participate.
Deadline is the 15.06, so there's not need to rush anything.
Our friends from Mozilla asked me to share this interesting
opportunity. Please support them in spreading the message, or apply
Be on the frontlines to protect the open Internet: apply by March 20th
to become a Ford-Mozilla Open Web Fellow! Mozilla is seeking talented
developers, activists, educators and other technologists eager to
protect the open Internet. The goal? Combat threats to digital freedom
and defend policy that keeps the Web open and free.
The 2016 cohort will be a global group working on a variety of
projects that protect the open Internet. This year’s host
* Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law
* The Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of
* ColorOfChange.org—New York, NY
* Data & Society—New York, NY
* Derechos Digitales—Santiago, Chile
* European Digital Rights (EDRi) —Brussels, Belgium
* Freedom of the Press Foundation—San Francisco, CA
* Privacy International—London, United Kingdom
This is a 10-month fellowship. The application window is open until
March 20, and fellows will be announced in June. They’ll begin work in
September of this year. For more information, visit
Sample Tweets to spread the word:
Do you believe in protecting the #openweb? Apply to become a
Ford-Mozilla Open Web Fellow! Applications due March 20
Join @FordFoundation @Mozilla and others in the fight to protect the
#openWeb. Apply to become a Fellow by March 20:
Help protect the #openweb; apply to become a Ford-Mozilla Open Web
Fellow with @MozillaAdvocacy by Mar. 20:
Referentin Internationale Beziehungen
Adviser to the ED, International Relations
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 21915826-0
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Can't do the legal work sorry. But here is some free advice...
I'm not sure Australian copyright exceptions are anything to model best practice on. We are desperately trying to reform them.
A lot of good work has been done recently on this and is contained in the reports from the Australian Law Reform Commission which did an 18 month review of copyright exceptions in Australia.
The final report recommends US style fair use or failing that fair dealing exceptions.
The discussion paper gives a very good overview of all the problems that exist with current exceptions and why reform is needed.
It's all online along with submissions which are also helpful for the arguments for OA here
Unfortunately the whole thing got stalled for a few years so nothing has happened. Reviews are underway again though so the merry-go-round continues.
From: Publicpolicy [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of publicpolicy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2016 11:00 PM
Subject: Publicpolicy Digest, Vol 45, Issue 5
Send Publicpolicy mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Publicpolicy digest..."
1. Re: "Best Case Scenarios for Copyright" - Freedom of Panorama
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 20:13:35 +0000
From: Michael Maggs <Michael(a)maggs.name>
To: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia
Subject: Re: [Publicpolicy] "Best Case Scenarios for Copyright" -
Freedom of Panorama
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
I don't need the money, and wouldn't want to do the full legal analysis but would be happy to offer a second opinion on the law as it currently stands in the UK.
Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
> Hi gang,
> I need your help, but this time I come offering money :)
> In Communia we are putting together best case scenarios for copyright
> exceptions. Basically what would be the absolute best reform that
> could happen from a public domain perspective.
> We have decided to feature Freedom of Panorama and for this we need
> someone to chose the country with the most beneficial exception (I
> believe Austria and the UK check the most boxes) and write 5-6 pages
> on it, including a legal analysis and real-life examples. Reward: €
> 450 plus eternal fame in copyright reformist circles.
> Publicpolicy mailing list
Subject: Digest Footer
Publicpolicy mailing list
End of Publicpolicy Digest, Vol 45, Issue 5