tl;dr
The Council of the EU failed to reach a decision on copyright reform last
Friday, meaning bickering between Member States will continue well into
May. Meanwhile the Parliament is making timid progress towards a committee
vote still scheduled on 21 June.
This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
===
Copyright Reform
---
The Council: COREPER I is a body made up of the deputy heads of missions of
EU Member States. [1] A legislative file is usually put forward to this
body when the attachés (technical experts) have reached a compromise and
majority support seems ensured. The Bulgarian Presidency believed it had
such a compromise capable to secure a majority and referred it to COREPER
I. [2] There, it was discussed last Friday only to the rejected. Regardless
of the positive spin the Bulgarian Presidency is trying put on it [3], this
is a pretty embarrassing situation for them.
---
So what? Had the proposal been accepted, the negotiations in Council
between the Member States would have come to a halt waiting for the
Parliament position. The compromise proposal put forward by Bulgaria was
not good, to say the least. It essentially does prescribe ex-ante
take-downs (so potential deletions of content before it even appears on
sites) of user uploaded content that is deemed as infringing by
rightsholders. And while there is a carve-out for an “online encyclopedia”
(Guess who they mean!), the situation with Wikimedia Commons and open
source code sharing platforms remained very unclear. The situation buys us
some time to motivate some Member States, most importantly Germany, to
update their position. Belgium and the Netherlands are the two countries
still vocally standing up for user rights and facing off a large group of
states demanding upload filters, which is lead by France. Big guns would be
needed to stop them.
---
European Parliament: Some bits of the current text in the European
Parliament look better than in the Council, but we still cannot be contempt
with it. It seems that the the rapporteur Axel Voss is prioritising Article
11 (ancillary copyright for press publishers) to Article 13 (upload
filters). We are especially worried the potential for an ex-ante filtering
provision, as in the Council. Other than that, the educational exception
seems to be a done deal, while safeguarding the public domain, freedom of
panorama, text and data mining and out-of-commerce works are still question
marks.
---
Next steps: This week the EP is kicking off a new round of discussions with
a technical meeting (experts and legal advisors working on the Legal
Affairs Committee) on Wednesday. We are bracing for one to two negotiation
rounds each week and daily tactical manoeuvring on all sides until at least
the end of June.
===
Revision of the Public Sector Information Directive proposed
---
First run through: The European Commission proposed a revision of the PSI
Directive last week. [4] The main goal is to broaden the current text by
opening up transportation data (including private companies that run
concession on behalf of public bodies), scientific data and to limit the
situations in which public bodies can demand payment for giving access to
data, documents and information. Skimming the proposal we see some very
positive changes, albeit we would have wished for a more ambitious text.
---
Particularly interesting: Article 5 (4) says “Public sector bodies and
public undertakings shall make dynamic data available for re-use
immediately after collection, via suitable Application Programming
Interfaces (APIs).”, which is a great opportunity and of particular
interest to data applications. The issue with the Directive is the still
many carve-outs and exceptions to the rule. But this is one of the rare
times where we are starting with a “rather OK” Commission proposal and have
the chance to get something positive in the end without risking to worsen
our situation.
===
French Jurisprudence: Chambord vs. Kronenbourg
---
Beer vs. castle: Chambord is a 16 century French castle owned by the
public. Kronenbourg is a popular French beer brand. The brewery used an
image of the former in an advertising campaign. The authority maintaining
the castle claimed that this was unauthorised use of images of the castle
and demanded indemnities. The court disagreed. [5] This is a ruling we
appreciate, as we are of the opinion that public domain works should be
free for re-use by all.
What is allowed in France? The legal situation in France remains
complicated. In 2016 a French law established a new image right on national
cultural heritage sites. [6] Wikimédia France and La Quadrature du Net
petitioned the constitutional court claiming that this image right
unlawfully restricts the public domain. [7] While this was rejected [8], it
seems that the new decision in the Chambord case actually goes in the
direction of the claim made by WMFR and LQDN.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Permanent_Representatives
[2]
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXVI/EU/01/86/EU_18668/imfname_10803001…
[3]https://twitter.com/zlateea/status/989838220740517888
[4]
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/proposal-revision-direct…
[5]
https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/loir-et-cher/commune/chambord/chambord-…
[6]
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_relative_%C3%A0_la_libert%C3%A9_de_la_cr%…
[7]
https://www.laquadrature.net/fr/Wikimedia-La-Quadrature-domaine-public-Cons…
[8]
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/dow…
Hi all,
This is to let you know that there is a request to have a banner on WP in
Germany next week:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request/Danke,_aber_Nein_Dank…
<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/…>
The issue is the EU copyright reform, more precisely Article 13 that
foresees filtering if user-uploaded content on online platforms.
The angle would be to call out the German government on their position.
They have inmistakenly taken a stance against such filters in the coalition
agreement, but the German representation in Brussels still maintains its
position from the last government (including support for filters).
Please feel invited to join the discussion.
Cheers,
Dimi
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm(a)cyrius.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:36 AM
Subject: Mailing list for GPDR regulation
To: spi-general(a)lists.spi-inc.org
This list on FOSS projects and the GPDR regulation may be of interest
to a lot of SPI associated projects.
----- Forwarded message from Chris Lamb <lamby(a)debian.org> -----
Falling out of Debian's own wrangling with the upcoming EU GPDR
regulation, I thought it might be a good idea to have a cross-
community discussion group to discuss the GDPR and its impact on
free software and free culture projects.
This has now been setup here:
https://www.earth.li/mailman/listinfo/gdpr-discuss
Please feel free to pass the link onto other communities who would
be interested in participating.
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb, Debian Project Leader
`. `'` lamby(a)debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
_______________________________________________
foundations mailing list
foundations(a)lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/foundations
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general(a)lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Hello All,
Last week the Wikimedia Foundation joined over 110 other companies and
organizations and signed onto an amicus brief before the Supreme Court of
the United States, opposing restrictions on immigration and travel to the
United States.[1] The Wikimedia Foundation has previously signed amicus
briefs addressing this issue [2][3][4], which will now be reviewed by The
United States Supreme Court in the case of Trump v. Hawaii, on appeal from
the Ninth Circuit.
This case arises from Presidential Proclamation 9645 and previously issued
executive orders [6] that limit incoming travel to the United States from
certain countries. Like previous amicus briefs we have signed regarding
this issue, the brief [7] explains how these restrictions will impact the
international operations of the Foundation and other signatories.
Additionally, it argues that there are legal problems with the restrictions
and their implementation.
As an organization that is part of an international movement, with
community members around the globe, the ability to travel and share
information is vital to advancing our mission. The strength of the
Wikimedia movement comes from our ability to coordinate and cooperate
across borders to share knowledge worldwide. We believe this proclamation
goes directly against the fundamentals of the global free knowledge
movement.
The Foundation stands with the members of our global communities,
regardless of location or origin. We continue to monitor legal and policy
developments that could impact the projects, the Foundation and our ability
to support the communities. We will track this case as it moves forward to
the United States Supreme Court, and will keep you posted on future
developments.
Best,
Jan
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780#Presidential_Proclamati…
[2]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-restr…
[3]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/
[4]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)
[7]
https://www.mayerbrown.com/files/uploads/Documents/US-companies-amicus-brie…
==
Jan Gerlach
Public Policy Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
1 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
jgerlach(a)wikimedia.org
@pd_w <https://twitter.com/pd_w>
@wikimediapolicy <https://twitter.com/wikimediapolicy>