Publicpolicy December 2018

publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org

3 participants
4 discussions

EU Copyright Reform to continue in 2019
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 14 Dec '18

14 Dec '18

Hi all, Yesterday was the last "trilogue" meeting for the year in Strasbourg. As expected, and despite the claims by EP negotiator Axel Voss and the Austrian Presidency, the Council and the Parliament weren't able to strike a deal on Articles 11 & 13 and the next round of negotiations will be in the second half of January. We can still end the year on a positive note. The Council and the Parliament reached an agreement on the "public domain safeguard". They have both accepted the Commission proposal (which makes sure that digitisations of public domain works will receive no new copyright or related rights in the EU). With this, the chapter on exceptions and limitations is closed. The text agreed upon reads: *Article 5(1a) - Public domain* Member States shall provide that, when the term of protection of a work of visual art has expired, any material resulting from an act of reproduction of that work shall not be subject to copyright or related rights, unless the material resulting from that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation. *(Recital)* The expiry of the term of protection of a work entails the entry of that work in the public domain and the expiry of the rights that Union copyright law provides to that work. In the field of visual arts, the circulation of faithful reproductions of works in the public domain contributes to the access to and and promotion of culture (or access to cultural heritage). In the digital environment the protection of these reproductions through copyright or related rights is inconsistent with the expiry of the copyright protection of works. In addition, differences between the national copyright laws governing the protections of these reproductions give rise to legal uncertainty and affect the cross-border dissemination of works of visual arts in the public domain. Therefore, it should be clarified that certain reproductions of works of visual arts in the public domain should not be protected by copyright or related rights. This should not prevent cultural heritage institutions from selling reproductions, such as postcards. This is also the first time the term "public domain" will become part of EU law (even though it is not defined, as some Member States were against that). Many thanks to everyone making this possible! Cheers, Dimi

1 0

A win for free expression in the European Court of Human Rights
by Allison Davenport 14 Dec '18

14 Dec '18

Hello everyone, We’re writing to share a recent blog post <https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/12/12/the-european-court-of-human-righ…> with you about the Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187930> case which was just decided in the European Court of Human Rights. For those who are unfamiliar with the case, it began when a Hungarian newspaper posted a hyperlink to an interview on Youtube which was later judged to be defamatory to a particular political party. The party successfully sued the newspaper for hyperlinking to the interview, although the newspaper had neither conducted the interview nor ratified its contents when it posted the link. After the Supreme Court in Hungary confirmed that decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) agreed to hear the case to determine if Hungary had violated freedom of expression as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf>. Last week, the ECHR released its decision, finding that Hungary had indeed violated Article 10 of the Convention. This is a significant win for free expression <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/11/22/freedom-expression-link/> in Europe, and a recognition of the importance of hyperlinking as expression. Hyperlinks may not get a lot of attention, but they are essential to collaboration, communication, and information sharing on the web, and the court rightfully recognized this. We are excited to share this decision and hope that it can serve as an example for future discussions about free expression on the internet. Best, Allison Davenport & Jim Buatti

1 0

December 11: Public comments due on noncommercial use of pre-1972 sound recordings
by Sherwin Siy 13 Dec '18

13 Dec '18

Hi everyone, I wanted to let you know that the Copyright Office is seeking comments on rules that should make it easier for people to make noncommercial uses of pre-1972 sound recordings that aren't being commercially exploited. https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/pre1972-soundrecordings-noncommercial/ Comments were filed on November 26, and now there's an opportunity to respond to those comments by December 11. The Copyright Office is looking for public input on rules it must create under the Music Modernization Act (MMA), which was signed into law last month. (We called attention to the threats that earlier versions MMA posed to the public domain; the passed compromise version contains provisions that actually improve <https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/the-new-music-modernization…> the status quo in the public domain in some areas) One part of the MMA lets a user make a noncommercial use of a sound recording made before 1972 if they make a "good faith, reasonable search" of Copyright Office databases and music services that offer a comprehensive set of sound recordings for sale or streaming. If the user doesn't find the work on those lists after their reasonable search, they can give notice to the Copyright Office and wait 90 days to see if a rightsholder comes forward and objects. If not, they can use the work. The Copyright Office is writing the rules that define what a "good faith, reasonable search" is, and it has more specific questions in its initial notice. (here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-10-16/pdf/2018-22516.pdf) Entities ranging from music industry groups to the Internet Archive have filed initial comments; (available here: https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&…) responses to those are due on December 11. The Wikimedia Foundation may file some short reply comments replying to some key points made in other submissions, or possibly join other organizations' comments, depending upon feedback. I'm posting this to the list because I thought it might be valuable for the Copyright Office to hear the perspective of community members who upload pre-1972 sound recordings to Wikimedia Commons, or make other non-commercial uses of the works. Even if you're not likely to use this particular provision for Wikimedia Commons yourself (given the restrictions), it could be useful for them to understand what searching for sources and availability looks like to a typical user, and not necessarily someone in the music industry. You can make those perspectives known by filing comments at regulations.gov. Instructions on how to file in this proceeding from the Copyright Office are here: https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/pre1972-soundrecordings-noncommercial/… Happy to answer any questions people might have. Thanks, Sherwin -- Sherwin Siy Senior Public Policy Manager Wikimedia Foundation

1 1

Wikimedia Foundation comments on NTIA privacy consultation
by Allison Davenport 05 Dec '18

05 Dec '18

Hello everyone, We would like to share with you comments <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/wikimedia_foundation_comme…> we submitted last month in response to one of the first open consultation processes discussing a framework for a federal privacy regulation in the U.S. The request for comments <https://ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr-rfc-consumer-privacy-092620…> was issued by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that advises on telecommunications policies, in this case: on consumer privacy. You may read all of the comments submitted at the NTIA’s website <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2018/comments-developing-adminis…>. We felt it was important to give input here based on the Wikimedia Foundation’s unique perspective on privacy and data protection. Privacy is an important policy priority at the Wikimedia Foundation. When, in 2013, revelations revealed the depth of the NSA’s surveillance into online activity, Wikipedia usage changed demonstrably <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645>. Research has shown that people act differently when they worry their actions or communications aren’t private, and that is the heart of why privacy is so important to the Wikimedia movement. This is why we made the switch to HTTPS in 2015 <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/12/securing-wikimedia-sites-with-https/>, and why we are currently engaged in a lawsuit <https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/> challenging those very same “Upstream” surveillance practices. Privacy does not only mean protection from government eyes, and increasingly, the topic of platforms collecting and selling data has been the center of conversations about privacy in the U.S. In our comments, we highlight how we are one of the few large internet platforms that does not rely on the tracking or sale of user data to generate revenue, and we incorporate this aspirational perspective when discussing the NTIA’s proposed framework. Our comments welcome a much-needed harmonization of privacy laws in the United States if done right, and suggest that the NTIA needs greater clarity and a more clear focus on user-impact in order to do so. We invite you to think about privacy as a priority for the future of free knowledge, and what that means for the Wikimedia movement as privacy rules and regulations become more prevalent in the U.S. and abroad. Best, Allison -- Allison Davenport Technology Law and Policy Fellow Wikimedia Foundation 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 adavenport(a)wikimedia.org

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Publicpolicy December 2018