Hi all,
I need to brainstorm with this group on museum incomes.
As you might know we are having some issues [1] with copyright and related
rights being claimed on digitisations of public domain works. We are
working on fixing this [2] over the legislative path in the EU. The
recently adopted mandate of the European Parliament [3], as bad as it was,
at least introduced a paragraph (Article 5.1a. & Article 5.1b.) that would
solve many of these issues.
As this is a new article introduced by the European Parliament, the Member
States attachés in the Council are currently discussing it. One of the
worries they seem to be having is not to endager museum incomes. We have
shared the opinion that museum shop sales are mostly dependend on location,
rather than on exclusivity.
It would, of course, be good to have some analysis/research/data on museum
income and exclusivity of works. Therefore I wanted to ask the list:
- Do you know of such research?
- Do you know of someone who would be interested in doing such research?
(We might have a grant available.)
Thanks!
Dimi
[1]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs
[2]https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/30/time-to-protect-pd/
[3]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference…
Dear All,
we have prepared a quick overview of the key articles as voted upon in
the EP vote of 12 September. This is of course not the end, but since so
many members of ourcommunity worked so hard before the two EP votes we
wanted to make sure you get a briefing in case you want to talk more
with your fellow Wikimedians on what is the result.
Let me know if you have any questions,
Anna
--
Anna Mazgal
EU Policy Advisor
Wikimedia
anna(a)wikimedia.be
@a2na
mobile: +32 487 222 945
51 Rue du Trône
BE-1050 Brussels
tl;dr
The European Parliament approved a copyright mandate that is detrimental to
user rights and introduces new exclusive rights. Meanwhile, the recast of
the Public Sector Information Directive is picking up pace.
This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
===
European Parliament on Copyright Reform
---
There is no way to sugar-coat it: The European Parliament adopted a
copyright mandate that is detrimental to free knowledge sharing. [1] It
establishes a new exclusive right for press publishers aimed at giving them
control over how press publications are shared online (Article 11). It
gives rightholders more control over how content is shared on platforms and
the demand stay-downs (Article 13). It gives rightholders the possibility
to demand additional licenses from anyone but researchers to mine legally
accessible text and data (Article 3). It extends copyright to sports events
and would allow the organisers to control images and recordings thereof
even more tightly (Article 12a). It would require any search engine to
obtain licenses for even thumbnail previews of images displayed in search
results (Article 13b).
---
Few rays of hope: On the other hand all of the tabled amendments that
didn’t come from the rapporteur Mr. Voss were rejected, including the
user-generated content and Freedom of Panorama exception proposals. The
only positive changes that survived were the ones that made it into the
committee compromises earlier this year: A public domain safeguard (Article
5.1a), an option for Member States to allow unrestricted text and data
mining (Article 3a), a realistic way for cultural heritage institutions to
sue of out-of-commerce works (Article 7). Also a slightly better version of
education exception made it through (Article 4).
---
What about the filters?: The rapporteur’s newly proposed Article 13
compromise was in the end adopted. It doesn’t speak of filtering per se,
but commands large for-profit platforms that host user-generated content to
“ensure that unauthorised protected works or other subject matter are not
available” while saying that this “shall not lead to preventing the
availability of non-infringing works”. Non-profit platforms remain excluded
from the new liability rules. Newly excluded are now start-ups (Article
2.1.4b)
---
Copyright Reform Trilogues: The Parliament will now enter into trilogue
negotiations with this mandate. These are meetings between the rapporteur
and his shadow rapporteurs with representatives of the European Commission
and the Council. There is a so-called four-column document with the
versions proposed by all three institutions and the fourth, blank column,
where possible compromises will be filled out.[2] We expect tomorrow to be
mostly about an exchange of positions and a formal agreement on the meeting
schedule.
---
===
Public Sector Information Directive recast
---
The recast of this piece of legislation that is supposed to make public
bodies and publicly financed services open up their documents and data is
picking up pace. The rapporteur in the lead Committee on Industry, Research
and Energy (ITRE), Mr. Neoklis Sylikiotis (GUE, CY) has tabled his
amendment proposals. [3] He will now be meeting with the shadow rapporteurs
from the other political groups to try to find common positions on most
issues. [4] Our priorities here are to make sure that the “open
definitions” are compatible with these of our projects and that, of course,
as much public information as possible is opened up for re-use.
===
ePrivacy Regulation
---
The European Union is working on upgrading its ePrivacy Directive (the one
responsible for the cookie notices) to a Regulation. The main goal is to
extend privacy rules that apply to SMS to also cover over-the-top services
such as messaging apps and better define the rules for cookies (getting rid
of the ridiculous notices) . The European Parliament’s mandate added a ban
on “tracking walls” to the original proposal. [5] After many months of
stalemate in the Council, the Austrian Presidency now proposed a new draft
Council position that would go in the opposite direction. A full depth
analysis thereof can be read here: [6] Once Member States agree on a
position the trilogue phase would start.
===
Preventing the Dissemination of Illegal Content
---
Just as if content filtering for copyright’s sake wasn’t enough, the
European Commission gets into the offensive to stretch the requirement for
the platforms to filter out content that is identified as terrorist[7].
Platforms will have an hour to take down messaging that praises terrorism,
encourages undertaking of such actions or donating to terrorist
organisations, on the 24/7 basis. Moreover, all platforms hosting
user-generated content would be obliged to carry out ‘proactive measures’
and make them even stronger at the authorities’ request. As much as
combating terrorism is important, among others, the future of efforts to
document war crimes and other atrocities is at stake. As the file has just
been assigned to Civil Liberties Committee Rapporteur Helga Stevens
(ECR/NL)[8], we will be following the works closely. Because yes, Wikimedia
projects fall under the scope of this proposed Regulation.
===
[1]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference…
[2]
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXVI/EU/03/62/EU_36241/imfname_10841779…
[3]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL…
[4]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2018/…
[5]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&referenc…
[6]
https://edri.org/five-reasons-to-be-concerned-about-the-council-eprivacy-dr…
[7]
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2018/EN/COM-2018-640-F1-EN-M…
[8]http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/125105/HELGA_STEVENS_home.html