Publicpolicy June 2016

publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org

27 participants
27 discussions

How to petition the Copyright Royalty Judges
by James Salsman 08 Aug '16

08 Aug '16

Since there have been no objections, would anyone like to cosponsor this? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Copyright Information* <copyinfo(a)loc.gov> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016 Subject: RE: General copyright To: "jim(a)talknicer.com" <jim(a)talknicer.com> Cc: Copyright Information <copyinfo(a)loc.gov> You may petition the Copyright Royalty Board by mail: Copyright Royalty Board PO Box 70977 Washington, DC 20024-0400 Sincerely, LG U.S. Copyright Office Attn: Public Information Office 101 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20559-6000 Email: copyinfo(a)loc.gov <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','copyinfo(a)loc.gov');> Phone: 877-476-0778 (toll free) or 202-707-5959 Fax: 202-252-2041 Website: www.copyright.gov *From:* jim(a)talknicer.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim(a)talknicer.com');> [mailto: jim(a)talknicer.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim(a)talknicer.com');>] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:50 PM *To:* Copyright Information *Subject:* General copyright General Questions Form Category: General copyright Name: James Salsman Email: jim(a)talknicer.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim(a)talknicer.com');> Question: I would like to petition the Copyright Royalty Judges to institute a sliding scale to redistribute top-40 windfalls from consolidated artists\' publishers to small, developing, and emerging artists in order to support the same number of gainfully employed performing and writing artists prior to the introduction of mass consumer copying technology. What are the email address(es) for petitioning the CRB? Thank you. Sincerely, James Salsman tel.: 650-427-9625 email: jim(a)talknicer.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jim(a)talknicer.com');>

5 13

Potential intervention in Canadian Equustek case
by Jan Gerlach 11 Jul '16

11 Jul '16

Hi All, As you know, we monitor legal developments across the world that could affect WMF projects. In Equustek, the Supreme Court of Canada is currently considering Google’s appeal of a Canadian court order that would require Google to remove from all Google domains links to websites selling products that allegedly infringe upon Equustek's intellectual property rights.[1] We believe that upholding such a broad order (and its extraterritorial application to all Google domains) could persuade courts in other countries that local court orders to remove Internet content should apply globally by default. We have the opportunity to intervene in the case pending before the Canadian Supreme Court and would like to take that opportunity to explain to the court how this case could threaten Wikimedia projects, free expression, and access to knowledge. Parties like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have been involved in the case, and are also expected to intervene. We would like to hear your thoughts on the case and the potential intervention. Best, Jan [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-appeal-of-worldwide-i… == Jan Gerlach Public Policy Manager Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 jgerlach(a)wikimedia.orgP

5 5

French law against FoP and commons
by Emeric Vallespi 04 Jul '16

04 Jul '16

Dear friends and fellow Wikimedians, French parliamentarians are going crazy: they're about to vote a Creation Bill, which - we think - will seriously harm the Wikimedia projects and free knowledge in general. It all began with fight for freedom of panorama in French Parliament last winter. As you may know, right-holders associations heavily mobilized against it, and got a lot of coverage. This first fight was just a tree hiding the forest. With the Creation bill, two new measures are about to privatize the public domain: 1. Very soon, it will not be legal anymore to upload pictures Castle of Chambord, Versailles, etc on Wikimedia Commons. You can find the explanation in this blog post (in French) : http://blog.wikimedia.fr/copyfraud-sur-les-domaines-nationaux-9172 2. Perhaps even more importantly, search engines will be charged with a mandatory fee, which that puts on the same level all legal and illegal images and totally violates the creative commons licenses... These two measures will be ratified by the French National Assembly. We did everything we could at Wikimedia France to try to stop this madness. If you have any ideas on how to help us prevent such a disaster, please don't hesitate to reach out to us, Best regards, -- Emeric Vallespi Chairman Twitter @evallespi WIKIMEDIA FRANCE Association pour le libre partage de la connaissance www.wikimedia.fr @Wikimedia_Fr 40 rue de clery, 75002 Paris

3 2

Best Education Copyright Exception in Europe? Estonia!
by Lisette Kalshoven 25 Jun '16

25 Jun '16

Dear all, Keeping copyright out of the classroom is one of COMMUNIA's most important recommendations. Today, within the Best Case Scenarios for Copyright series we present education exception as it works in Estonia to benefit education, research, teaching. This exception is crucial to make ICT and connectivity really useful in education. Please share the basic facts blogpost: http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/24/education-exception-bcs-copy… <http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/24/education-exception-bcs-copy…>, where a detailed legal study can be found, via your social media and mailing lists. Also please keep an eye on our TT (@communia_eu) to share the message if you want. I hope you find it interesting and worth spreading! If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact us. With warm regards, Lisette Kalshoven -- Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven

4 6

FoP in Belgium: Text adopted in committee, plenary next
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 25 Jun '16

25 Jun '16

Hi all, The text on Freedom of Panorama in Belgium that was adopted in committee two weeks ago is finally available online (FR & NL). [1] There were only minor, technical changes as compared to the version adopted in the first reading. Notably, "reproduction" was replaced by "reproduction or communication" in two places, which is very useful in regard to the EU's legal framework. The Socialists and the French speaking Christian-Democrats proposed again to limit the exception to non-commercial uses only, which was rejected by 10-5 with one abstention. The same opposition then proposed a second amendment, asking for at least compulsory attribution when the images are being used commercially. This was again rejected 10-5 with one abstention. [2] The entire text was adopted with an identical voting behaviour of 10-5 with one abstention. The majority is made up of Flemish Nationalists, Flemish Christian-Democrats and the Liberals from both language groups. This is also the governing coalition of Belgium. The Greens, who normally side with the Socialists in Belgian federal politics, abstained instead of siding with the opposition which they are part of. As part of the debate the Socialists kept bringing up the example of France, while the Liberals and Flemish Nationalists replied, that they intentionally chose to model the legislation after the Dutch and UK examples. The next step is a plenary vote that should happen rather soon (in several weeks, depending on the workload). We have a stable majority, but might still try to split the Socialists by asking parts of the group to at least abstain (voting for government coalition proposals is not really a political option for them at this point). After that the King has to confirm the bill by signing it before it is published in the State Gazette. 10 days after publication the text become legally binding in Belgium. Cheers, Dimi [1]http://www.lachambre.be/FLWB/PDF/54/1484/54K1484009.pdf [2]http://www.lachambre.be/FLWB/PDF/54/1484/54K1484008.pdf

6 9

Re: [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?
by John Sadowski 24 Jun '16

24 Jun '16

Hi all, Upon further reflection, it's likely that the exceptions are so broad that nearly all works could actually be withheld from the public domain and fall under copyright. This analysis is consistent with the EFF's position. I've revised Wikimedia DC's potential letter (attached) to reflect this. (Note of course that this is a draft that has not yet been approved by the chapter, and may change.) I'd love to get your feedback on the letter. I've been advised that we should send this out before the beginning of next week, so I'd like to get your input soon. Thanks! On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:36 PM, John P. Sadowski <johnpsadowski(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Wait, wait. The bill has changed significantly in the last few days. >> The new language states that any potentially copyrightable work “shall be >> released into the public domain” with certain exceptions, and even under >> the exceptions they “shall issue the requesting party a license to use the >> record,” though it may be a non-commercial license. Are these exceptions >> fine or are they too broad? If they are reasonable, the bill would >> actually affirmatively put government works in the public domain, instead >> of having to rely on a court decision, which would actually be something we >> should support. >> >> >> >> FWIW I actually did write a draft for a letter for Wikimedia District >> of Columbia to approve and send out (attached), but the changes to the bill >> may make it unnecessary, or would require some rewriting if we think the >> exceptions should be tightened. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Publicpolicy [mailto:publicpolicy-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Stephen LaPorte >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2016 12:51 PM >> >> *To:* Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia >> *Subject:* Re: [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California? >> >> >> >> Thanks, Tim! I'll reach out to Ernesto about the letter. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Timothy Vollmer <tvol(a)creativecommons.org> >> wrote: >> >> EFF's organizing a letter to the California Senate in opposition to this. >> I'm not sure what the mechanism is for WMF to act on this, but if it is >> interested in reading it/signing, it should send a note to Ernesto Falcon >> at EFF (ernesto(a)eff.org). Several orgs are signing on, including: >> >> >> >> Association of Research Libraries >> >> Creative Commons >> >> Association of College and Research Libraries >> >> Sunlight Foundation >> >> American Library Association >> >> Niskanen Center >> >> Californians Aware >> >> Creative Commons USA >> >> Northern California Association of Law Libraries >> >> Data Coalition >> >> Open Media and Information Companies Initiative >> >> Student Press Law Center >> >> Public Knowledge >> >> Fight for the Future >> >> >> >> timothy >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:03 PM, John P. Sadowski < >> johnpsadowski(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> This bill passed the California Assembly (one of the two houses of the >> California State Legislature) yesterday, but it was amended to include the >> following language [1]: >> >> >> >> *13988.3 (b) (1) When a state entity creates a work that is otherwise >> subject to copyright protection, the work shall be released into the public >> domain unless the state entity reasonably determines any of the following:* >> >> *(A) The work has commercial value, and the release would jeopardize the >> integrity of the work.* >> >> *(B) The release would infringe upon the property interests of a third >> party.* >> >> *(C) The release would detrimentally affect the state’s interests in its >> trademarks, service marks, patents, or trade secrets.* >> >> *(2) If a state entity reasonably determines that a work meets the >> criteria described in paragraph (1), the entity shall catalog those works >> and submit the information to the department for the purpose of tracking >> intellectual property generated by state employees or with state funding as >> provided in Section 13998.2.* >> >> … >> >> *(e) Nothing in this section requires a state entity to own, license, or >> formally register intellectual property that it creates or otherwise >> acquires.* >> >> *(f) This section shall not apply to the use of expressive works created >> by nonstate employees or without state funding.* >> >> *…* >> >> *(c) A public agency that releases a public record that is subject to >> copyright protection pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of >> Section 13988.3 shall issue the requesting party a license to use the >> record in a manner that is consistent with the rights provided under this >> chapter and that is considered an act of fair use under the federal >> Copyright Act. The license may restrict the holder from using the record >> for a commercial use only if such use would result in economic harm to the >> public agency or to the public’s interest.* >> >> >> >> Are we happy with this? I suppose that letter I was writing may be moot >> now… >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> [1] >> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=20… >> >

3 3

Fwd: Copyright Royalty Board News, Issue 146
by James Salsman 22 Jun '16

22 Jun '16

Regarding the proposed petition to the Copyright Royalty Judges to institute a sliding scale reimbursement for artists to redistribute top-40 windfall royalties to new, emerging, and small artists so as to support the demand for the larger number of gainfully employed recording, performing, and writing artists prior to the introduction of mass consumer copying technologies, please see below. Is there any reason these proposals should not be made part of the Best Case Scenarios for Copyright? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Library of Congress <loc(a)service.govdelivery.com> Date: Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:06 AM Subject: Copyright Royalty Board News, Issue 146 June 22, 2016 Issue 146 COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES CLARIFY RULE REGARDING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL STATIONS (81 FR 40190) The Copyright Royalty Judges are announcing a technical amendment clarifying the rule announced on May 19, 2016, that relaxes certain reporting requirements for educational stations that pay no more than the minimum fee for the use of sound recordings under the statutory licenses in Sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act. The new rule took effect May 19. For details, see: https://www.loc.gov/crb/fedreg/2016/81fr40190.pdf Library of Congress · 101 Independence Ave, SE · Washington, DC 20540 · 202-707-5000

1 0

EVA-GESAC document from August 2015
by Eva Lepik 22 Jun '16

22 Jun '16

Hi, I wonder if the Wikimedians have read and answered to this document? Estonian Author's Society added this to their answer to the Estonian Ministry of Justice regarding the consultation by European Commission about FoP and additional copyright. Regards, Eva

2 1

EU Policy Monitoring Report June
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 22 Jun '16

22 Jun '16

Tl;dr Brussels is effectively on pause these days due to the European Championship in France and the EU Referendum in the UK. This and the fact that Wikimedia just about to begin means that this month’s report comes a week early. Luckily, this gives us some time to take a closer look at Member States (France and Belgium) and at a very exciting court ruling on levies and the private copying exception. This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor ---------------- ---------------- FoP in Belgium: Sorry, be we’ve got to gloat! The Chamber of Representatives of Belgium approved a bill to introduce freedom of panorama: 85 in favour (Liberals, dutch-speaking Christian-Cemocrats and Flemish National-Conservatives), 42 against (Socialists and french-speaking Christian Democrats) with 12 abstentions (Greens). [1][2][3] This is, in practice, the end of the process. We’re now waiting for the King to sign the bill into law and for it to be published in the State Gazette. Ten days later it will come into effect and everyone will have to respect & honour it (e.g. by uploading images to Commons). ---------------- How free?: It is a full exception without a non-commercial restriction or even attribution requirements [4], although both had been proposed in committee. [5] As the exception was modelled after the Dutch law, objects need to be depicted in their “natural environment”. I have not heard of this causing any issues in the Netherlands. Additionally, there is a boilerplate inclusion of the Berne three-step-test which, as we saw in Sweden, could cause additonal headache, but legally isn’t something that wouldn’t have been valid anyway. ---------------- What’s next?: If you’re wondering what WMBE is doing next, we’ll be lobbying on the free re-use of government documents, since the new open data law came into effect. It lets the government specify a license they wish to use. [6] We’ll also be looking for ways to assist the Luxembourg community to get FoP there as well [7], as the two countries share strong political and cultural links and we our communities share a Wiki Loves Monuments edition. ---------------- ---------------- FoP in France: Nothing new on Freedom of Panorama here after the Senate vote affirmed the NC restriction. A joint commitee between the Senate (upper house) and the Assembly (lower house) confirmed that this will be ther version sailing through. The only one who could request a change now is the French government, but they won’t, as they didn’t even want it include FoP he first place. [8] ---------------- “Image levies” in France: As part of the same bill, the joint committee introduced a “tax” to be collected from online services offering image search. This, it seems, will include all images, including those that are in the public domain or freely licensed. Additionally, the term search engine is very broadly defined as services that “index and reference” images. A clarification is attempted by adding that the provided information has to be “collected automatically” [8], obviously in an attempt to target Google but not UCG sites. It is an important question whether Commons, with its Flickr bots that crawl and collect images from other sites, falls under this definition. What is sad to see is that French collecting societies will try to collect money on each and every image, but Freedom of Panorama will nonetheless remain restricted. ---------------- ---------------- “The Reprobel case” is a very intersting legal battle, that might forebode the future of the French image tax and also helps understand shifts in the political willingness to reform copyright in Brussels. Reprobel is the Belgian collecting society gathering levies from reprography and public lending in the name of authors, publishers and journalists. It collects money on every printer sold in the country.[9] ---------------- Enter HP: Not being very happy with this, Hewlett-Packard Belgium sued Reprobel. The (very well written) argument goes like this: There is a private copying exception and the relevant law talks of “fair compensation” for authors. However, not every printer is used to infringe on authors’ copyright and publisher’s rights are mostly not infringed at all. ---------------- Preliminary Decision of the CJEU: The Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal of Brussels) referenced the case to the Court of Justice of European Union seeking clarification on whether this general and undifferentiatied collection of levies is permissible under the Information Society Directive (a.k.a. Copyright Directive). The court’s decion states that "the notion and level of fair compensation are linked to the harm resulting for the author".[9] ---------------- What this means in Brussels: We will have to wait for the actual ruling and probably for the final court instance, but logically the reading by the CJEU means that while authors (might) suffer harm, which is a precondition to receive fair compensation, publishers are not exclusive reproduction rightholders and do not suffer harm for the prupose of the private copying exception under the InfoSoc (Copyright) Directive. This is a potentially poisonous decision for the collecting societies and publishers as it may open up a legal gap in their financing system. Since then there has been a frenzy in Brussels among them to do everything necessary to close this foreseeable gap. This also means that they can’t continue saying that the Copyright Directive should remain closed. They are, in fact, asking for a (copyright) reform. ---------------- ---------------- [1] http://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/adoption-de-la-liberte-de-panorama/a… [2]http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2652533 [3] http://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr/showpage.cfm?section=flwb&language=fr&cfm=/si… [4]http://www.lachambre.be/FLWB/PDF/54/1484/54K1484011.pdf [5]http://www.lachambre.be/FLWB/PDF/54/1484/54K1484007.pdf [6] http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2… [7]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/WMBE/FoPLUX [8] http://www.nextinpact.com/news/100309-en-france-on-restreint-liberte-panora… [9]http://ipkitten.blogspot.be/search?q=reprobel [10] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=171384&pageI…

1 0

Info about Reiss-Engelhorn Museum (REM) of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation
by Jacob Rogers 20 Jun '16

20 Jun '16

Dear all, Unfortunately, we have some bad news to share. The Landgericht Berlin, the German trial court in the Reiss-Engelhorn Museum (REM) of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation case, has ruled in favor of REM. The case involved a request to take down several pictures hosted on Commons as public domain (most famously the portrait of Richard Wagner) that had been taken by a photographer employed by the museum. The museum claimed that the photographs taken by their photographer were copyrighted even though they were faithful reproductions of public domain works. We argued that the works contained no originality and not enough effort to justify even a limited German copyright, and further that the Museum’s rules prohibiting photography while claiming copyright on their pictures was effectively an attempt to create new copyright in works that belong to the public. The court held that the photos taken by the museum’s photographer are subject to German copyright protection, similar to any mobile phone snapshot regardless of the subject, and, therefore, are not in the public domain in Germany. We think that the court reached the wrong conclusion and did not properly consider the harm of this holding on the public domain in a world where people experience and discover their culture online. Therefore, we plan to appeal the case to the Kammergericht Berlin, the next - but not yet final - level of appellate court above the Landgericht. The final level of appeal could then be the so called “revision” at the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany’s Supreme Court - if the Kammergericht or BGH actually allow this kind of appeal. However, there is some good news as well. The case against Wikimedia Deutschland, which was sued as part of the same case as the WMF, has been dismissed with the court properly understanding that it cannot force WMDE or its members to make changes to Wikimedia Commons. With regard to the images themselves, the WMF continues to be of the opinion that we have the legal right to host the images on Commons for two reasons. First, we respectfully believe that the German court erred in its reasoning, which is why we’re appealing. And second, even if the pictures are considered to be copyrighted in Germany, the WMF continues to stand by our legal position that they are in the public domain in the United States, as explained on the PD-Art page <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_U…>. As such, we believe that the decision whether to keep the images in question remains with the community in light of this ruling. We will continue to support that decision, regardless of what the community chooses to do. However, we would like to note that the community may want to update the tags used on the pages for the REM images, so that users in Germany have some warning that the trial court has ruled that they do not have permission to use the pictures there. For more on this, please see the discussion on Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Info_abou…> as well. Best, Jacob -- Jacob Rogers Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Publicpolicy June 2016