The crucial copyright vote in the European Parliament has been postponed
until at least the end of January. The Council negotiations have been fed a
new round of compromises drafted by Estonia.
This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
European Parliament on Copyright Reform
The lead committee (Legal Affairs, JURI) has expectedly rescheduled its
vote on the copyright reform to its 24/25 January session.  We are
still waiting for the new rapporteur Axel Voss (EPP, DE) to propose his
first compromise amendments. Now is the time to give him and the shadows of
this file wordings they can actually work with. Ancillary copyright and
upload filtering seem to be the most debated items, which less time being
spent on discussing exceptions.
The last remaining opinion giving committee (Civil Liberties, LIBE) has
also postponed its vote to 6 November.  LIBE is working exclusively on
the upload filtering for UGC sites article.  In the last shadow meeting
(where MEPs working on the dossier meet) every political group, except the
EPP, agreed to support the compromise that was also passed in the Internal
Market committee (IMCO).  This would be good news for us, as this
version protects the intermediary protections we currently enjoy and
doesn’t mention “content recognition technologies”. If two powerful
committees (IMCO, LIBE) support this compromise it will be the basis for
the work in the lead committee (JURI).
New Estonian Compromises on Copyright
Meanwhile the Estonian Presidency has drafted new compromise proposal which
it will hope a majority of the Member States can agree on. They were
originally partially leaked over Politico, but it was the Austrian
Parliament that made them fully available.  Kudos!
On the upload filtering article we cannot like or support the proposed
compromise, as it goes on to redefine the concept of “communication to the
public” in a way that hurts intermediary protections we rely on.
Furthermore, while the term “content recognition technology” has been
dropped from the actual article (good!), it now simply appears in the
recitals (not good!).
The proposed text and data mining exception is not really good enough. It
allows cultural and research organisations to create copies for the purpose
of using technical analysis in the context of research, but asks them to
retain the copies no longer than strictly needed for conducting the
research. The main reason for having such an exception in the first place
is that scientific results must be reproducible and thus the data should be
included in the documentation. Theoretically all other mining uses that
only require temporary technical copies are already covered by an exception
and legal. This however is only mentioned in a recital, which is a bit
The Estonian Presidency makes some efforts to widen the proposed education
exception by expanding the number of places illustrations for teaching will
be possible. Originally only the premises of education establishments were
included, now also “other venues” are included, as long as the school or
university is responsible for the event.
The Civil Liberties committee has voted to pass all compromise amendments
on the E-Privacy Regulation and to start trialogues (negotiations on the
final text with the Council and the Commission). The committee position was
later also confirmed in a plenary vote.  The final Parliament position
 is a strong text that pushes the “privacy by default” principle and
that will nonetheless get rid of the “cookie banners”, which you might have
seen when opening sites from the EU.
As part of its “data economy” legislative package , which is expected 1H
2018, the European Commission will also attempt to reform the Public Sector
Information Directive.  This piece of EU legislation tries to push
public bodies across the EU to open up as much content and data as
possible. It currently mostly recommends the use of free licensing, which
has not been as effective in switching public bodies to an open model of
publishing. A few years ago the Commission therefore released a “best
practice guide” on how to implement it.  We will recommend for these
best practices to become binding. If you want to work on our answers with
us, please do so through the dedicated Meta-Wiki page. 
Belgium: More panoramic drama
Since about a year there is a Freedom of Panorama exception in Belgium. It
is not limited to non-commercial uses but, as a compromise, includes that
the uses should “not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work”. This
is not an issue for buildings, whose normal exploitation is being
rented/inhabited. However it could be tricky for landmarks. How far this
restriction really goes will now be tested. The Atomium (the non-for-profit
that inherited the rights from the architect after his death) will sue
French DJ Hamida, because the latter filmed his latest music video in front
of Brussels landmark without asking for permission. 
I'm not sure what's the impact, but I guess it's good if newsletters
going out to flocks of customers start looking like EFF newsletters,
e.g. with this issue focused on privacy (the case is about a site named
DisruptJ20, it seems).
Didn't check the Wordpress hosting thing.
-------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Oggetto: Introducing the New DreamHost Newsletter
Data: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 16:26:19 -0600
October 2017 Newsletter
Welcome to the NEW DreamHost newsletter!
If it looks a little different, that's because it is! We threw a new
coat of paint on the ol' bird and we think it looks pretty nice.
There's less to read now, so it should be a little more digestible.
We've freshened up the design, threw in some lovely illustrations, and
even snuck in an ad or two to give you the full modern e-newsletter
We've worked hard to make this as absorbable as some of your finer
topical medications. Please rub it in, wait for the burning to cease,
and once you've regained consciousness, marvel at your newfound
And the forehead tattoo. That one's from me. :*
A Win for Internet Privacy
After the DOJ Deadlock
Internet users can breathe (and browse) a little bit easier thanks to
the Washington D.C. Superior Court’s ruling in the DisruptJ20 case
earlier this month.
Fall of the Gavel
"My sites run WordPress and they're going to be on Ellen tomorrow!"
Hooboy. If we had a nickel every time we've heard this one... We'd have
a lot of nickels.
That's why we created DreamPress, our fully managed WordPress hosting
service. We've taken our own years of WordPress experience and smooshed
'em up with the power of our own cloud hosting (powered by OpenStack) to
build the absolute best WordPress experience on the web.
Learn More about DreamPress
That's DreamPress. You've probably heard of it. You've definitely
dreamed about it. You might even be using it now!
DreamPress grew up in October! It is now, officially, "managed WordPress
so nice we packaged it thrice."
Stop Internet Trolls
TECH TALK | WEB HOSTING | TIPS
Combat Internet Trolls
on Your Website
Scary Halloween monsters aren’t the only
beasts you might be dealing with this fall.
Check out these 12 ways to shut down
internet trolls when they come prowling
on your page.
Fight the Trolls
See these upcoming seminars in English and Spanish, about how our movement
allies at IFLA, and in the library community, are thinking about
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ariadna Matas Casadevall <Ariadna.Matas(a)ifla.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:55 AM
Subject: [IFLA-L] IFLA Webinar: "Libraries, Copyright and the World
Intellectual Property Organisation” [English, Spanish]
To: "ifla-l(a)infoserv.inist.fr" <ifla-l(a)infoserv.inist.fr>
*[Spanish version follows / Versión en español a continuación]*
*IFLA Webinar: "Libraries, Copyright and the World Intellectual Property
On *1 November*, join us for a 30-minute webinar to learn more about the
current discussions on libraries at the World Intellectual Property
Organisation (WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html>), how IFLA
advocates for better exceptions and limitations to copyright for libraries
worldwide and how you can engage and help move things forward.
*Click here <https://www.ifla.org/node/12604>* *to join the call and to
know more about it*
*Webinar de la IFLA: "Bibliotecas, Derecho de Autor y la Organización
Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual”*
El día *1 de noviembre*, participe a un webinar de 30 minutos para saber
más sobre las actuales discusiones en la Organización Mundial de la
Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI <http://www.wipo.int/portal/es/>) en el tema de
las bibliotecas, cómo IFLA promueve y defiende mejores excepciones al
derecho de autor alrededor del mundo y cómo usted puede ayudar.
*Haga clic aquí <https://www.ifla.org/ES/node/12615>para acceder al
webinar y para obtener más información *
The webinars will be recorded, and we will share the recordings and slides
for you to watch later and reuse.
*Los webinars serán grabados, y compartiremos las grabaciones y
diapositivas posteriormente para que estén a su disponibilidad.*
Please feel free to share this information in your networks, and we hope to
see you there!
*No dude en compartir esta información con sus redes. !Esperamos verles
IFLA Policy and Research Officer
Twitter: @ariamatas <https://twitter.com/ariamatas?lang=ca>
Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and other
Wikimedia projects partner with cultural heritage organizations:
May be relevant to our interests.
To continue developing and applying AI, the UK will need to increase ease
of access to data in a wider range of sectors. This Review recommends:
- Development of data trusts, to improve trust and ease around sharing
- Making more research data machine readable
- Supporting text and data mining as a standard and essential tool for
Earlier this month, the Wikimedia Foundation joined a letter
from the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations to the
United States House Judiciary Committee regarding upcoming efforts to
reform Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
the statute that allegedly authorizes the mass surveillance we are
challenging in Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA>. In the letter,
we urged the lawmakers to close the “backdoor search loophole,” which
allows law enforcement to search through information collected under
Section 702 without a warrant.
Two weeks ago, the USA Liberty Act, a draft bill that would reform Section
702, was introduced. Unfortunately, the current draft of the new bill does
not close the backdoor loophole; it also fails to address numerous serious
constitutional and legal deficiencies in the U.S. government’s reading of
Section 702. WMF and other organizations have therefore written a second
to the House Judiciary Committee, to voice our opposition to the USA
While we certainly encourage lawmakers to require a warrant for searches of
information gathered under Section 702, such reforms are only small steps
in the right direction. We believe that this mass surveillance is
unconstitutional, and that’s why we filed WMF v. NSA. We will continue to
keep you updated on our efforts to oppose surveillance, and you can keep up
with WMF v. NSA on our resources page
Public Policy Manager
*new address (Oct. 2, 2017)*:
1 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
I'm excited to let you know about a paper I've written that has been
published by the Yale Law Journal! The paper is regarding the legal
atmosphere around intermediary immunity, the Wikimedia movement
(specifically focused on Wikipedia), and how it interacts with fake news
and the correction of false information. It takes a legal scholarly
perspective on the issues and focuses on the benefits of the existing legal
regime that enables the work of the independent volunteer community.
The article can be found at
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
I am Saqib from the UAE.
There is no freedom of panorama in the UAE, however I am willing to
advocate for it.
Could we possible have a CN banner for advocacy of Freedom of Panorama for
Last week, we wrote to this list to express our support for a meaningful
reform of Section 702 of the United States’ Foreign Intelligence
which is up for reauthorization at the end of this year. Section 702 is the
statute under which the National Security Agency allegedly has authority to
conduct the mass surveillance practices that we are challenging in Wikimedia
Foundation v. NSA
We are writing on this matter again to let you know that we have joined a
to the ranking members of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary
encouraging specific reforms to Section 702. It was also signed by the
American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the
American Library Association, PEN America, and many other organizations
with a variety of mandates and interests. The letter places special
emphasis on closing the “backdoor search” loophole, which allows law
enforcement to query certain government surveillance databases for
individuals’ personal information in national security investigations
without needing to demonstrate probable cause.
As we continue to challenge the constitutionality of “Upstream” mass
surveillance practices in Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA, we are also
continuing to monitor the effort to press for meaningful reform of Section
702. We believe that closing the backdoor search loophole would be a small
step, yet a step in the right direction. For more detail on much-needed
reforms to Section 702, see the ACLU’s informational page
You can also follow the progress of Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA on the case
landing page <https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/>.
Public Policy Manager
*new address (Oct. 2, 2017)*:
1 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
The crucial committee vote on copyright has been postponed giving us
several extra months to prepare. The Member States are discussing a common
position in the Council and some of them are worrying about fundamental
This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
EU Copyright Reform
New timeline: The lead Legal Affairs committee (JURI) will not be able to
keep its original timeline on copyright reform. The crucial vote on
copyright is now most likely to happen end of November or even December.
Also, the last opinion giving committee, Civil Liberties (LIBE), is not
likely to be ready to vote its copyright report this week in Strasbourg. 
Our negative agenda: We are looking at a dynamic that makes it seem less
likely that we will see a full-blown ancillary copyright approved in the
Parliament. Still, this so-called press publishers right has been coming
back from the death so many times that I wouldn’t write it off completely.
On the other hand, we still have an Article 13 that will be part of the
final text for sure. Our efforts on this must concentrate around the top
goal of not to letting upload filtering for UGC sites become an obligation.
We are also trying to keep the liability protections laid out by the
E-Commerce Directive intact, although a majority seems set on cutting them
Our positive agenda: We are trying to give Freedom of Panorama a new spin
by bringing in the Augmented Reality industry on board.  Th next big
step would be to convince a car maker that already invests in AR technology
to make a few phone calls. The education exception is still to be discussed
and we are hoping to broaden its scope. There has been some considerable
support piling up in favour of a broad text and data mining exception,
including academia and start-ups.  The preservation & public domain
article is so far flying under the radar and still needs to be discussed by
the rapporteur and shadows.
The Council: The discussions between the Member States have been very much
centred around ancillary copyright (Article 11) and upload
filtering/intermediary liability (Article 13). As of today, we can confirm
that 16 Member States voiced opposition to a new press publishers right,
preferring some sort of legal “presumption for publishers” (Option B on
Article 11 in Estonian Presidency compromises ). The more worrying news
is that many countries seem to be giving up support on Article 11 in order
to get what they want out of Article 13. Hence, the discussion on Article
13 seems much more tedious. Both options presented by the Estonian
Presidency are shrinking the E-Commerce Directive’s liability protections.
It is furthermore completely unclear how user-generated platforms are to
keep any infringing content from appearing on their sites without general
monitoring. Such general monitoring obligations, however, have been
declared illegal by the Court of Justice of the EU.  This has lead six
Member States (Belgium, Czechia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland and the
Netherlands) to ask the legal services of the Council whether the Article
is compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.  Later
it also became clear that Germany has asked its own questions  and that
Poland has voiced criticism along the same lines.
AVMSD: Long form: Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The European Union
has decided that it wants at least some of the rules that apply to
traditional broadcasters (advertising, cultural quotas, age
classifications) to also apply to online video platforms like YouTube,
iTunes and Netflix. There is currently a big discussion on whether
video-sharing platforms should be included. The issue for us is that
Commons could very well fall under this definition. We are now in a very
intransparent phase of the process called a trialogue. This is when
Commission, Parliament and Council meet to hammer out wordings and
compromises in all-night sessions that are not open to the public. Our best
chance of getting something moving in our direction is the Council, where
“blocking minority” could carve out some limitations. Further reading: 
Digital Contracts: We are currently discussing some rules regarding
“digital contracts” in the EU.  The EU legislator declared itself
worried about the so-called “click-through" agreements that we all click
through online. These are supposed to become safer and more understandable
for citizens by means of a Directive. We are now in the stage where the
compromises are being discussed in the European Parliament committees. What
would be a win for us is if a safeguard that makes sure exceptions and
limitations cannot be overridden by licensing agreements is included.
Data Driven Economy: We have been participating in a number of
consultations regarding the “data driven economy” recently. Our goal is to
push the Commission away from its idea of establishing a new “data
producers right” and towards the idea of scrapping the sui generis database
right. A synopsis of the responses to the first consultation came out. 
The good news is that “most respondents do not support regulatory
intervention, be it by creating ownership-type rights or by licensing
obligations. 68% of 284 respondents to the question clearly support the
increased use of APIs, and around a half state that, in some cases,
providing non-binding guidance and sharing best practices could help.”
PSI Directive: As a last and final (tbc) consultation before the “data
economy” package is propose, the Commission is asking us for our opinion on
the Public Sector Information Directive.  We, among other
organisations, have already given the Commission our thoughts on this a few
years back, which were mostly welcomed and included in non-binding
implementation guidelines.  We will now basically take the position
that we want these guidelines to become mandatory.