Hi all,
The EU Kids Act has landed. Wikimedia projects, as well as not-for-profit
educational and scientific projects are out of scope.
Dimi & Michele
=== Age Verification: EU Kids Act ===
On 17 September the European Commission unveiled the EU Kids Act
<https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-eu-kids-act-eu-ke…>
(technically a full acronym: EU Keeping Internet Digital Spaces Accountable
and Trustworthy - EU KIDS AcT; but I strongly suggest we stick to
lowercase). The proposal sets a single EU-wide age limit of 15 for
accessing social media platforms and certain AI services, with no standard
social media access for under-13s, and supervised accounts with limited
daily use and features for 13–15 year olds. Safe-by-design requirements —
no addictive features, no algorithmic recommendations, no infinite scroll —
apply up to 18.
—
The headline for us: Article 2(4)
<https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-eu-kids-act-eu-ke…>
explicitly excludes all Wikimedia projects from the scope of the
regulation, including Phabricator. The exclusion list covers “non-profit
online encyclopedias”, “non-profit educational and scientific
repositories”, and “open-source software platforms”. From the opposite
perspective, the inclusion list puts "online social networking services"
and "video-sharing platform services", but both definitions do not target
Wikimedia projects.
—
This is a clean result, and consistent with the exemptions Wikimedians and
Wikimedia organisations have been advocating for in national laws across
the EU. It is especially nice to see that not only Wikimedia projects, but
also all educational and scientific platforms, will be able to avoid
additional barriers to access. Another bonus is that, should it be adopted,
many of the national proposals and discussions will become obsolete, as
EU-law layers on top of national laws.
—
The proposal now enters the legislative procedure. In the Council, it will
be handled primarily by the Audiovisual and Media Working Party (the same
one that also handles age checks in more traditional media). The Irish
Presidency has flagged the Kids Act as a priority. In the Parliament, we
expect the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committee to take
the lead. Perhaps the Civil Liberties (LIBE) committee will co-lead.
—
Our top priority is to defend Article 2(4) throughout the legislative
process. We will however also cover how the age verification system
envisaged by the proposal will work in practice. Given that it will
effectively check large parts of the internet and the population, this
seems like an important infrastructural and societal question.
—
=== Age Verification: National ===
Denmark is (still) advancing its own national age limit bill
<https://dk.wikimedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B8ring/H%C3%B8ring_over_forslag_til_lov_…>,
which targets under-15s on very large online social networking platforms.
Our reading is that Wikimedia projects are not covered by the definition
used in the bill. We have been coordinating with Wikimedia Denmark on this
and they will submit a consultation response.
—
In Austria, the draft law has been published
<https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVIII/SNME/6189> and is in
consultation. The Austrian approach targets platforms with specific
addictive functionalities — algorithmic feeds, endless scrolling — rather
than drawing up a platform list. This and the fact that it uses the AVMSD
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiovisual_Media_Services_Directive_2010>
and its definitions as a legal basis (for which Wikimedia Commons is not in
scope) means Wikimedia projects should in principle be outside scope.
Wikimedia Österreich submitted public feedback
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v_PU7KzjSRFvovd3TNvvY43-okvUNQQQ/view?usp=…>
to the government consultation pointing out some unclarities in the
definitions.
—
In Spain, Wikimedia España has published a blog post
<https://wikimedia.es/proteger-a-los-menores-en-internet-y-preservar-el-acce…>
on child protection. It is meant to be part of the wider discussions
around the Proyecto de Ley Orgánica
<https://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L15/CONG/BOCG/A/BOCG-15-A-52-1.PDF>.
The article is calling for the protection of minors online to be reconciled
with free access to knowledge — and for an explicit exemption along the
lines of the French law (which had exemptions similar to the ones in the EU
Kids Act). Either way, in the current version of the Spanish proposal
Wikimedia projects are also out of scope, as it targets providers of
audiovisual media services, as per AVMSD.
=== CSAM Regulation ===
A trilogue negotiation (Commission, Council, Parliament) on 29 September
was expected to be the make-it-or-break-it moment for the CSA Regulation
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Combat_Child_Sexual…>
(dubbed by critics as Chat Control). It wasn’t. The proposal aims to
legally oblige platforms to detect and report child sexual abuse material.
—
The central unresolved issue remains scanning on personal communication.
The position of the Parliament is that this should be allowed only with a
judicial order and only when very targeted. The Council has been pressing
Parliament to accept detection orders targeting specific "parts of a
service". It is an open question how broad “parts of service” can be
interpreted, but the Council's own Legal Service has warned in an internal
analysis that this approach would likely be found by courts to constitute
general and indiscriminate, and therefore unlawful. A leaked Council
document circulated ahead of the trilogue showed that member states were
still divided on the key questions. The Parliament's stated red line
remains the protection of end-to-end encryption.
=== Denmark: Media Ombudsman Law ===
A smaller but relevant Danish development: the Danish government has put
forward a proposal for a media ombudsman law (lov om medieombudsmanden),
with a consultation deadline of 29 September. The law would establish an
ombudsman with jurisdiction over so-called "alternative media actors"
(alternative
medieaktører) under §11. Wikimedia Danmark has drafted a submission
<https://dk.wikimedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B8ring/H%C3%B8ring_over_forslag_til_lov_…>
to the consultation arguing that Wikipedia and collaborative wikis should
not be included in the scope of this category. The argument is that
Wikipedia's community governance model and editorial processes are
categorically different from the kinds of actors the law is designed to
address, and that bringing it within scope would be both disproportionate
and counterproductive.
=== Copyright Reform Incoming ===
It is with a heavy heart that we need to report this. Both parliament and
Commission officials confirmed to us that a targeted, small copyright
reform is coming, likely in March, April or May next year. Meanwhile the
European Commission launched a targeted consultation
<https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-seeks-feedback-cha…>
on:
1.
The use of copyright-protected content in artificial intelligence
2.
The fight against online piracy of content like live events
3.
The application of the single equitable remuneration right of music
performers and producers
4.
Copyright of scientific research
Sounds familiar? That’s because there was a “call for evidence” (a fancy
synonym for an early consultation) weeks ago on the same questions. Anyway,
Wikimedia Europe did respond to the call
<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…>
and we will also participate in the consultation. Top of mind will be the
strain AI systems put on community-led, open, and not-for-profit models, as
well as scientific research exceptions.
===END===
--
Wikimedia Europe ivzw
Hey all
The Danish government has published a draft bill on an age limit (15 years)
for social media users for comment:
https://hoeringsportalen.dk/Hearing/Details/71440
Under the draft § 1, subsection (1)(1)–(3), the bill would apply to
platforms that are covered by the definition in art. 2(7) or (8) in the DMA
(online social networking service or video-sharing platform service), have
been designated as very large online platforms under art. 33 of the DSA
*and* are accessed via login (cumulative criteria). The prohibition is
targeted at the users, not the platforms.
I know WMF projects are designated as VLOP under the DSA, but do we have
any statement on whether they constitute a social networking service under
art. 2(7) DMA? Note that the draft bill does not appear to require the
platform to have gatekeeper status under the DMA.
Kind regards,
Matthias
Dear friends,
This email contains links to updated resources on the Global Advocacy
Meta-Wiki page to support your advocacy work, as well as a few
announcements on how to get involved with upcoming events.
Curious what the WMF team has been up to in the past few months? We’ve
conveniently documented everything in this “Don’t Blink” recap
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/08/21/dont-blink-protecting-the-wikimedia-m…>.
Highlights include: Understanding online age verification; child safety in
Brazil; Wikimedia and AI.
We said watch this space. These updates are now live!
1. Completed! Communication survey. The results are in and OUT when it
comes to the survey we ran about how this group wishes to engage on calls,
collaborate, and communicate. On this page of our Meta-Wiki hub
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Global_Advocacy/…>,
you can find the link to survey results as well as our next steps. We will
be relaunching our monthly internet governance calls a swell as our
quarterly advocacy network calls.
- Next steps for quarterly calls: These calls will be hosted by YOU.
Please add your name to the list if you’re interested in hosting one of
them. If no one signs up, we will not move forward with these calls.
- Next steps for monthly calls: The next call has already been scheduled
for Thursday, October 1st. If you have not been invited but would like
to be, send Ziski an email.
2. Published! Comprehensive resource that compiles all key messages to
explain Wikimedia’s value to policy makers. Find it here on Commons
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Key_External_Messages_to_Explain_Wi…>.
Save it. Use it. Love it?
3. Updated policy priorities. WMF team is transitioning to a highly
prioritized remit of policy priorities for this fiscal year. These have now
been updated on our Meta-Wiki page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Global_Advocacy/…>.
Our focus will be on (1) Ensuring that laws and regulations protect the
Wikimedia model and support its sustainable reuse over time; and (2)
Ensuring that new legislation and regulation around online safety will not
harm key values of the community’s editorial review or principles of open
governance. Our “documentation” page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Global_Advocacy/…>has
been updated to include a brand new section dedicated to online safety, as
well as an archive of useful publications where you can see how we talk
about preserving and protecting the digital commons in the age of AI.
Events for you: RightsCon & EU Public Domain Day
== EU Public Domain Day ==
European Public Domain Day 2027 (EPDD27) will be held on 21 January 2027 in
the Royal Library in Brussels, Belgium. Together with scholars, advocates,
policy-makers and practitioners, EPDD celebrates the Public Domain and
discusses how we collectively can continue fostering it. EPDD is
collaboratively co-organized by a group of Belgian stakeholders in the
public domain sphere, including Wikimedia Europe and Wikimedia Belgium.
Here is how you can participate:
-
Submit a proposal: Send in a contribution to present at EPDD27. The
deadline for submissions is 30 September 2026.
-
Save the date: Join us on 21 January 2027 at the Royal Library in
Brussels.
For more details, please see:
-
Call for Contributions:
https://www.pdday.org/news/call-for-contributions-2027/
-
About Public Domain Day: https://www.pdday.org/about/
== RightsCon Online ==
Registration is now open for the RightsCon Continues Summit
<https://rightscon.summit.tc/catalog/rightscon-continues-2026> (online,
starting September 22, 2026)!
Over the course of 24 hours, spanning every time zone, the RightsCon
Continues Summit will bring our community together for a unique moment of
collective resilience. Through a focused online program built around themes
of solidarity, movement building, and cross-sector collaboration,
participants will exchange ideas, strengthen relationships, and tackle some
of the biggest threats facing digital rights today.
To learn more or register today, visit the registration page
<https://www.rightscon.org/registration>. If you have any questions, feel
free to reach out to rightscon(a)accessnow.org.
Topics Wikimedians are actively monitoring and engaging in
==Forgive me Father for AI have….==
Wikimedians are engaging religious figures, the Vatican in particular, on
discussions of AI ethics.
-
Wikimedia Switzerland hosted and spoke at an excellent event that
covered Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical on AI
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnifica_humanitas>. Watch the recording on
YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKzlJEOMdDg>. @Jenny Ebermann
<jenny.ebermann(a)wikimedia.ch>
-
Wikimedia Brazil is joining Father Paolo Benanti of the Vatican on
September 2nd for an event with UNESCO on plural intelligence
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7496691954219581440/?u…>.
@João Alexandre Peschanski <joalpe(a)wmnobrasil.org>
Why are we sharing a stage?
AI leaders in Silicon Valley are increasingly invoking morality arguments
such as the Antichrist or "magic intelligence in the sky" - either way,
framing AI as something that will reshape human destiny. You know who
thinks about morality and the antichrist a lot? The Vatican (and other
religious groups). And they take it seriously when someone with no
background in these concepts treads on their toes.
Believe it or not, Wikimedia and religious entities, particularly the
Vatican, may be on the same team in AI discussions. That team is the one
calling for alternative interpretations of AI ethics than what silicon
valley and industry leaders are propagating. Specifically, an understanding
that AI advancements need to place humans, and human dignity, at the center
of the equation. Technological progress must be weighed in light of the
social, cultural, and moral consequences it can have. And finally, these
tools must be able to reflect the plurality of human experiences and
intelligence. Moreover, we both know what it means to work through
multilingual, global networks.
🤓To learn more about the Vatican’s stance, I recommend this interview by
Kara Swisher
<https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-vatican-takes-on-ai/id1643307527?…>
.
Why is this a smart play from a policy advocacy perspective?
Generally, forming unlikely alliances is an excellent advocacy tactic. My
favourite example from the Wikimedia universe is the work Wikimedia South
Africa and ReCreate did
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_South_Africa/Copyright_Amendment_…>to
advocate for Copyright reform alongside Blind South Africa, the Actor’s
Guild and Teacher’s Union. It helps you bring in new perspectives that
sharpen your arguments. Access to a new network of stakeholders and allies
that your new partners have gives you a broader reach, since you probably
haven’t worked with their network before. It secures more media attention.
And it often gives your cause higher credibility if unlikely partners
advocate for the same thing (the surprise factor means policymakers think,
‘woah, if these two are agreeing on something, maybe I need to pay
attention’).
If we are able to work more closely with well-known religious leaders, we
can pitch more interesting and unique panels on major international stages.
We can also share information about Wikimedia’s unique model and value
across networks that we haven’t before accessed. And finally, it may win
support for Wikimedia (or at least, make it harder to oppose us) among
conservative leaning audiences.
== Online safety and age-verification bills ==
We responded to a consultation in Brazil on the topic of child safety. All
details here
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/07/protecting-digital-public-goods-wikim…>
.
Lots and LOTS of age-verification updates in the EU. See the EU Monitoring
Report
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.or…>
.
‼️The biggest headline in this space is Meta’s landmark settlement in the
US. Read more:
-
The VergeCast <https://finance.biggo.com/podcast/1d289cb26299a180>
breakdown of the settlement
-
TechDirt
<https://www.techdirt.com/2026/08/26/meta-just-paid-nearly-17-billion-to-mak…>
analysis of the ruling
-
Tech Policy Press
<https://www.techpolicy.press/what-metas-us-settlement-on-child-safety-means…>:
What the US ruling might mean for Europe
Great newsletters to monitor tech trends
To learn more about what's happening in tech policy discussions beyond
Wikimedia, check out some of these newsletters:
- The Internet Exchange <https://internet.exchangepoint.tech/>
- TechCrunch <https://techcrunch.com/tag/newsletter/>
- Tech Policy Press <https://www.techpolicy.press/newsletter/>
- Axios AI newsletter <https://www.axios.com/technology>
- Rest of the World <https://restofworld.org/>
Advocacy events where we're showing up as a movement (list always evolving)
1.
Sept 4 - 6 | Global Gathering, Portugal
2.
Sept 8 - 10 | Data for Policy, <https://dataforpolicy.org/> Barcelona
3.
Sept 22 | RightsCon Online Summit
4.
Sept 22 - 25 | UN General Assembly, NYC
5.
Oct 2 - 3 | WMEU Big Fat Brussels Meeting, Brussels
6.
Oct 28 - 30 | Mozilla Festival, Barcelona
7.
Nov 4 - 5 | Thomson Reuters TrustConference, London
8.
Nov 10 - 12 | Paris Peace Forum, Paris
9.
Nov 17 - 19 | Digital Public Goods Alliance annual members meeting, Paris
10.
Dec 14 - 18 | Internet Governance Forum, Nairobi
=== [image: 🙏]Thanks for Reading This Far[image: 🙏] ===
Franziska Putz (she/her)
Senior Movement Advocacy Manager
Global Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
Fputz(a)wikimedia.org
UTC Timezone
Hi all,
Traditionally this monitoring report, along with most of Europe, doesn’t
show up in August. But we have had some major developments on child
verification, so we thought we’d do a quick & dirty version to get the
rentrée (the period in September when Europeans start working again) going.
Dimi & Michele
=== Age Verification: France ===
France's Constitutional Court struck down
<https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2026/08/14/france-s-constitutional…>
the social media ban for under-15s on 14 August, ruling that the law
disproportionately restricted minors' freedom of information and
expression. Notably, the Court explicitly acknowledged the encyclopaedia
and knowledge platform exemption in the law — but found that the exemption
did not go far enough to save the overall measure. The government has said
it will rework the bill, but it is doubtful they will have time considering
the looming elections. The ruling matters well beyond France: it is based
on fundamental rights that are harmonised across the EU. We can confirm
that is already reshaping how bureaucrats and decision makers in Brussels
are thinking about what a legally defensible age restriction mechanism
needs to look like.
=== Age Verification: Brussels ===
We are now waiting for von der Leyen's State of the EU address on 16
September, during which an announcement on social media restrictions is
expected. From what we are hearing, parental opt-out mechanisms, risk-based
approaches and different age limits are still being discussed. Nothing
seems locked in yet.
=== Age Verification: Spain, Austria, Greece, Netherlands ===
Spain, Austria and Greece are all advancing their own proposals. Austria is
in the early stages, it has notified its draft law
<https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notificatio…>
to the Commission under the TRIS procedure. Spain's Proyecto de Ley Orgánica
<https://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L15/CONG/BOCG/A/BOCG-15-A-52-1.PDF>
is advancing through the Congreso. Greece has enacted a law weeks ago that
will introduce age verification from 1 January 2027. But the final text is
so unclear that the government is currently working on revising it. We are
actively monitoring all three, jointly with local communities where
possible. We will get active where we see a risk of scope creep. Currently
our projects don't seem to be covered.
The Dutch government is in the meantime explicitly advocating a risk-based
approach and plans to share proposals with the Commission in early
September. This is very welcome, as a risk-based approach is an argument we
are using with lawmakers.
=== Digital Omnibus ===
All 1,840 amendments to the Digital Omnibus have now been published. On the
data protection side, the two lead rapporteurs — Kaljurand (S&D) and Salla
(EPP) — have staked out different positions on some important questions,
including whether to change the GDPR's definition of personal data, how to
handle cookies, and whether legitimate interest can serve as a legal basis
for AI training on personal data. These questions do look like a re-scoping
of fundamental rights
<https://wikimedia.brussels/editorial-wmeu-on-the-digital-omnibus-the-russme…>,
not a simplification measure though. They will be divisive and decisive for
the compromises.
On saving standard licences for open government data, we are pleased to
report that our amendments are all in
<https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CJ72-AM-791072_EN.pdf>. The
amendments would delete the provision introducing actor-specific
differentiated licensing, restore the original language encouraging
standard licences, and fix the term of exclusive digitisation agreements.
This is the issue we flagged earlier this year alongside Communia, Creative
Commons,and many, many others
<https://communia-association.org/2026/07/06/open-letter-protect-open-standa…>.
We will be reaching out to ask for your support as the compromise process
gets underway.
=== CADA Proposal ===
The Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA)
<https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/communication-european-tec…>
is the Commission's proposal to create a sovereignty framework for public
procurement of cloud and AI services, with four assurance levels depending
on how sensitive the use case is. It is not a priority file for us — its
focus is on cloud infrastructure procurement, not open knowledge platforms.
However, one provision is worth flagging: to reach the highest sovereignty
tier (level 4), providers must demonstrate that no entity established
outside the EU holds effective control over the software components they
use.This is probably impossible for MediaWiki or any other open source
project to fulfill. In practice that could mean that MediaWiki could not be
procured for military and intelligence applications as well as nuclear
facilities. A real shame! But the question about “effective control” and
open source software should be seriously discussed during negotiations.
===END===
--
Wikimedia Europe ivzw
Dear friends,
I hope those of you at Wikimania have had a chance to recover. The message
below contains recaps and resources from policy discussions at Wikimania,
as well as updates from some of you and the WMF Global Advocacy team.
In this edition we’re trialing a new section that highlights trends at the
international internet governance level. Thanks to @Sophia Longwe
<sophia.longwe(a)wikimedia.de> from WMDE for these details.
If you're curious what the WMF team has been up to in the past few months?
We’ve conveniently documented everything in this recap
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/31/dont-blink-protecting-the-wikimedia-m…>.
Highlights include: UN Open Source Week; DRAPAC in the Philippines;
protecting anonymity online.
Once again, settle in with your favourite cuppa...☕🍰
Watch this space
Quick things to be aware of:
1.
Coming soon! Comprehensive resource that compiles all key messages to
explain Wikimedia’s value to policy makers. So you can talk, talk, talk.
2.
WMF team is transitioning to a highly prioritized remit of policy
priorities for this fiscal year. Updates will be shared out shortly
including opportunities for discussion.
3.
Ziski and Noah are working on the final adjustments in response to the
feedback we received from our survey (feels like ages ago) related to how
this group wishes to engage on calls, collaborate, and communicate.
4.
Updates related to refreshed priorities as well as communication
structures will be reflected on the GA Meta-Wiki as well as via this
mailing list.
Public Policy @ Wikimania
Public policy was a core theme at this Wikimania. Top of mind? AI and large
scale content reuse. Online safety, specifically of young people. Information
integrity and safeguarding reliable sources. You can review the
policy-related sessions in this blog post
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/20/understand-the-forces-shaping-free-kn…>
.
Day Zero Advocacy Workshop dove into how to work with external partners
(particularly institutions like the UN that can support advocacy efforts),
as well as two ongoing examples of copyright reform campaigns that are
active in Brazil and Nigeria, not to mention CC's global campaign ( @Dee
Harris <dee(a)creativecommons.org> ).
📚 All resources including the slide deck have been added to the workshop
meta-wiki page
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2026:Wikimania/Day_Zero_Advocacy_Works…>.
Don’t miss:
-
WM Brazil’s report
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Licen%C3%A7as_Livres_no_Governo_F…>
about their copyright reform work, as well as that of Free Knowledge
Africa in Nigeria
<https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ADVANCING_OPEN_KNOWLEDGE_UNDER_TH…>.
TY @Marília Rocha <marilia.rocha(a)wmnobrasil.org> & @Olubusola Afolabi
<olubusola(a)freeknowledgeafrica.org>
-
Learning more about Open Indonesia
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/09/01/open-indonesia-energizing-the-open-kn…>
as an example of how Wikimedians in Indonesia launched a national advocacy
initiative inspired by their role in the Open Heritage Coalition (a global
campaign)...for more info chat to @Hardiansyah
<hardiansyah(a)wikimedia.or.id>
-
Resources on how to build an advocacy strategy.
Topics Wikimedians are actively monitoring and engaging in
==Sustainability of the open ecosystem in the face of large scale content
reuse==
📚Want to understand the issue better? Here are some resources.
-
The Wikimedia Foundation published a new blog post
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/17/how-ai-threatens-the-social-contract-…>articulating
how the scraping of the knowledge commons is challenging the social
contract that underpins the free knowledge ecosystem while traffic from web
scraping bots is at an all-time high
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/03/26/quo-vadis-crawlers-progress-and-whats…>
.
-
This 2025 research report <https://hal.science/hal-05581044v1/document>
provides a strong overview of how reciprocal structures of data sharing are
cracking, what tactics different actors are adopting, and what options
exist for more ethical and fair data sharing in the AI era.
💪What are we doing as a movement to advocate for the protection of
knowledge commons? Free knowledge advocates are raising awareness of this
issue in multiple fora.
-
The DPGA (Digital Public Goods Alliance) has released a “Defence
Playbook” to mitigate AI exploitation
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/The_DPG_Defence_Playboo…>,
as well as best practices for preventing AI exploitation of open content
<https://dpgalliance.github.io/dpg-public-letters/dpg-open-content-data/en>
and open data (helpfully informed by WMF colleagues in Product and
Tech @Marzanne
Collins <mcollins(a)wikimedia.org> @Chris Ciufo <cciufo(a)wikimedia.org>).
-
Wikimedia France used Wikimania Paris as an opportunity to launch their
first whitepaper.
<https://www.wikimedia.fr/livre-blanc-vers-une-societe-des-communs/> It
helps policymakers understand why preserving open, transparent and
democratically governed knowledge infrastructure is important…and provides
a roadmap for how the commons can be integrated as a cornerstone of digital
policy. Talk to: @Xavier CAILLEAU <xavier.cailleau(a)wikimedia.fr>
-
Open Future and Wikimedia Switzerland published a whitepaper
<https://openfuture.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/260721-Wikimedia_the_commo…>that
explores the ongoing structural transformation of the open knowledge
ecosystem and what responses are available to the Wikimedia Movement. Talk
to: @Alek Tarkowski <alek(a)openfuture.eu> or @Ilario Valdelli
<ivaldelli(a)wikimedia.ch>
-
In Kenya, @Winnie kabintie <kabinte(a)gmail.com> joined a panel organized
by the DPGA that dove into reciprocal governance for digital public goods
and the data commons. Read Winnie’s reflections from the event
<https://kenyaforum.net/columnists/ai-data-and-the-future-of-knowledge-why-a…>
.
-
WMF brought the issue to UN Open Source Week
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/07/09/un-open-source-week-edit-a-…>
.
🧠 How to help others understand the issue? Why should they care about the
sustainability of the commons? That’s the million dollar question.
-
There’s a convergence of approaches we’re seeing to help policymakers
understand that our projects are unique assets. At WMF, we’re testing out
if we can encourage policymakers to understand knowledge commons as
critical digital infrastructure
<https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/knowledge-as-critical-digital-infrastru…>:
assets that are so essential that they need to be prioritized and protected
on the same level as critical infrastructure. WMDE is testing different
languages, treating Wiki Projects as Digital Luxury
<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jan-david-franke-b6871093_another-internet-i…>.
Same same but different. We encourage you to test these out and see what
sticks.
== Online safety and age-verification bills ==
This topic isn’t going away. In fact, it keeps picking up steam.
Wikimania was an important venue to share insights from campaigns related
to Online Safety Bills as well as possible on-Wiki policy changes and
proactive measures to ensure our projects are as safe as they can possibly
be for all users. Resources related to those discussions:
-
🚀 Just launched: WMF’s 3-part explainer on age-verification
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/20/online-age-verification-explained-par…>.
What it is, why it matters for Wikimedia projects, what we (and you) can do.
-
Lessons from protecting Wikipedia from strict criteria in the UK Online
Safety Act
<https://wikimedia.org.uk/2026/01/wikimedia-uk-and-the-online-safety-act/>
and Brazil’s online safety
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/01/16/why-the-wikimedia-foundation-is-advoc…>
laws.
Beyond Wikimania, this is a pressing issue. Some updates from WMEU are just
the tip of the iceberg:
-
France has passed its Loi visant à instaurer une majorité numérique
<https://www.senat.fr/leg/ppl25-903.html>, becoming the first EU country
to enact a social media age ban into law. The law bans under-15s from
accessing social media platforms. Good news for us! The law explicitly
states that the obligations "apply neither to online encyclopedias nor to
educational or scientific directories, nor to platforms for the development
and sharing of free software or open-source digital projects with an
educational purpose." 👉 How do we replicate this excellent carve-out
for similar laws in other countries?
-
Spain, Austria, Sweden, the UK and more are actively debating similar
bills. Full details in Dimi’s email.
The issue is expanding to the AI realm. See for example: Coalition launched
to advance children's rights in the age of artificial intelligence
<https://www.unicef.org/digitalimpact/stories/coalition-launched-advance-chi…>
(Announcement from UNICEF and the governments of France and Spain during
the UN Global Dialogue on AI about a new coalition on child rights and AI).
👉 How do we keep child rights in mind when debating and experimenting with
AI on Wiki?
== Copyright ==
-
See updates under Wikimania re:Nigeria and Brazil’s ongoing campaigns.
-
EU Public Domain Day will take place on January 21st in Brussels. Learn
more <https://www.pdday.org/>.
What’s Happening in Internet & AI Governance(Contributed by Sophia Longwe,
WMDE)
== Internet Governance Forum ==
Preparations for the UN Internet Governance Forum
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum> (IGF) 2026, which
will take place in Nairobi from 14-18 December, are in full swing. The
next Open
Consultations and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meeting
<https://indico.un.org/event/1025290/> will take place in Geneva from 7-9
September.
What’s new? A major development this year is the launch of the Policy
Network on Open Digital Infrastructure (PNODI)
<https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-policy-network-on-open-digital-i…>.
PNODI is particularly relevant for the Wikimedia movement, as it creates an
opportunity to shape global discussions around the governance and financing
of open digital infrastructure. 👉Community discussions have now begun and
participation is open to everyone interested in contributing via the
mailing list and regular calls.
== Global Dialogue on AI Governance ==
The first UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance
<https://www.un.org/global-dialogue-ai-governance/en>, established through
the Global Digital Compact (which many of you helped shape
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Digital_Compact_Wikimedia_Advocacy_C…>!),
took place in Geneva on 6-7 July alongside the WSIS Forum
<https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2026/> and the ITU AI for Good Summit
<https://aiforgood.itu.int/>. Governments alongside other stakeholder
groups discussed how global AI governance should evolve. Wikimedians from
Switzerland, Germany and WMF attended and contributed our perspective to
these important discussions.
Curious what these global bodies are doing related to AI? The International
Scientific Panel on AI presented its preliminary report, which you can read
here
<https://www.un.org/independent-international-scientific-panel-ai/en/prelimi…>.
Civil society organizations emphasized the importance of meaningful
multistakeholder participation and stronger safeguards for human rights.
👉Reports like this are an excellent resource when you’re preparing
submissions or talking points for a policy engagement. They provide clues
to what issues related to AI governments might care about (is it security?
Is it linguistic inclusion or media literacy? Is it national sovereignty?),
and as a result, which case studies or benefits of Wikipedia you should
highlight.
📖 Further reading:
-
Joint Multistakeholder Statement of the Freedom Online Coalition on the
UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance
<https://freedomonlinecoalition.com/news-joint-multistakeholder-statement-on…>
-
Civil Society Read Out Report – 1st United Nations Global Dialogue on AI
Governance
<https://www.gp-digital.org/news/civil-society-read-out-report-1st-united-na…>
Advocacy events where we're showing up as a movement (list always evolving)
1.
Sept 4 - 6 | Global Gathering, Portugal
2.
Sept 8 - 10 | Data for Policy, <https://dataforpolicy.org/> Barcelona
3.
Sept 22 | RightsCon Online Summit
4.
Sept 22 - 25 | UN General Assembly, NYC
5.
Oct 2 - 3 | WMEU Big Fat Brussels Meeting, Brussels
6.
Oct 28 - 30 | Mozilla Festival, Barcelona
7.
Nov 4 - 5 | Thomson Reuters TrustConference, London
8.
Nov 10 - 12 | Paris Peace Forum, Paris
9.
Nov 17 - 19 | Digital Public Goods Alliance annual members meeting, Paris
10.
Dec 14 - 18 | Internet Governance Forum, Nairobi
=== [image: 🙏]Thanks for Reading This Far[image: 🙏] ===
Ziski
Franziska Putz (she/her)
Senior Movement Advocacy Manager
Global Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
Fputz(a)wikimedia.org
UTC Timezone
Hi all,
Europe is heading into its August slow down. But before that there are
plenty of age verification fireworks: The Commission’s panel of experts
delivered a report, France passed the EU’s first age verification law and
the Austrian governing coalition say it has agreed on a proposal and will
publish it soon.
=== Age Verification: France ===
France has passed its Loi visant à instaurer une majorité numérique
<https://www.senat.fr/leg/ppl25-903.html>, becoming the first EU country to
enact a social media age ban into law. The law bans under-15s from
accessing social media platforms, with the government targeting September
as the enforcement date. Platforms require express parental consent for
under-15s to sign up, with parents specifying the conditions, time limits
and hours of access — and retaining the right to withdraw consent at any
time.
—
The law explicitly states that the obligations "apply neither to online
encyclopedias nor to educational or scientific directories, nor to
platforms for the development and sharing of free software or open-source
digital projects with an educational purpose." ("ne s’applique ni aux
encyclopédies en ligne, ni aux répertoires éducatifs ou scientifiques, ni
aux plateformes de développement et de partage de logiciels libres ou de
projets numériques à vocation éducative en source ouverte.").
—
Before passage, the European Commission reviewed the French text under the TRIS
procedure
<https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/home> and
drew three red lines: national authorities cannot expand their powers in
ways that encroach on the Commission's own DSA enforcement jurisdiction;
any list of restricted platforms must rest on a clear, legally sound
definition; and the parental consent mechanism must be clearly specified.
If an EU law is eventually adopted covering the same ground, the French law
wouldn’t apply anymore. An EU law is something the French government has
stated it wants.
=== Age Verification: Austria ===
Austria's coalition government announced an agreement on a social media ban
<https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVIII/ME/132> for children under
14, covering TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat, but not WhatsApp.The
law focuses on what it defines as “video-sharing platforms”. The draft law
will now undergo legal review before being notified to the European
Commission under TRIS. Positions can be submitted until 21 September. The
proposal closely focuses on amending Austria’s audiovisual media rules.
Wikimedia projects are unlikely to meet the legal threshold of a
"video-sharing platform" as currently defined in the proposal, based on a
first analysis.
=== Age Verification: Spain ===
Spain is advancing its own package of measures under the existing minors'
protection bill (Proyecto de Ley Orgánica para la protección de las
personas menores de edad en los entornos digitales (121/000052)
<https://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L15/CONG/BOCG/A/BOCG-15-A-52-1.PDF>).
The Spanish government's approach combines access restrictions, platform
liability and criminal sanctions — a notably broader set of instruments
than the French or Austrian models.
—
These obligations target device makers, commercial services offering adult
or harmful content or gambling-like features, social-media-style
registration that relies on data-consent rules, and platforms that must
already restrict adult audiovisual content. They do not, according to our
own analysis, impose a general age-gating or identity-verification
requirement on all websites or information services. The proposal is still
in committee.
=== Age Verification: Sweden & UK ===
As a reminder, Sweden's proposal (reported last month) explicitly excludes
Wikipedia by name. The Swedish report reasoned that digital encyclopedias
fall outside scope because they lack many of the social networking and
connection features that make social media platforms specifically risky for
children. The UK is also preparing to announce further rules for access of
under-16s to online platforms, but no text is published yet.
=== Age Verification: European Commission ===
The Commission's special panel on child safety online, chaired by Prof.
Jörg Fegert and Dr. Maria Melchior, has delivered its report
<https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/d833504d-5ec3-4fac-945f-38e7…>.
The headline recommendation is a harmonised EU-wide access restriction to
social media and other digital services for children under 13. The burden
of proof, the report argues, should shift to social media platforms: until
they demonstrate their services are safe by design, they should not allow
access to children under 13. The report also distinguishes between age
groups (e.g. 10-12, 13-15, 16-18) and the different risks and regulatory
options at each stage.
—
The Commission is expected to make a legislative proposal on child safety
and age verification sometime after the summer recess but before Christmas.
=== CSAM Stop Gap Bill ===
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union successfully
passed a new interim stopgap regulation
<https://eulawlive.com/council-reinstates-interim-regulation-allowing-volunt…>
in July 2026. This temporary measure restores the legal basis for online
service providers to voluntarily detect and remove child sexual abuse
material (CSAM) until April 3, 2028, closing a legal gap that had existed
since the previous temporary rule expired on April 3, 2026.
—
The European Parliament initially rejected the temporary patch, as they are
negotiating with the Council on a permanent CSAM Regulation (which we have
written about in this report many times). Many parliamentarians fear that
extending the temporary measure will take pressure off the negotiations.
However, the parliament’s president, Roberta Metsola (EPP MT) invoked a rarely
used second reading procedure
<https://www.europarl.europa.eu/olp/en/ordinary-legislative-procedure/overvi…>
which changed the majorities needed. Under it, the absolute majority of 361
MEPs was needed to reject the regulation. This quirk was deliberately built
into the EU’s rules to tilt legislators toward adoption, instead of eternal
deadlocks. However it almost never gets used, as mentioned above.
—
The Parliament ultimately voted to send the bill back to the Council with
cosmetic changes. The Council then adopted it.
=== Digital Omnibus ===
A coalition of MEPs — Elena Sancho Murillo, Marina Kaljurand, Brando
Benifei and José Cepeda (all S&D) — has tabled an amendment proposal to
remove actor-specific licences from the Digital Omnibus and preserve
standard open licensing for public sector information. This has happened as
part of the proceedings in the Industry, Research and Energy committee
(ITRE). An open letter
<https://communia-association.org/2026/07/06/open-letter-protect-open-standa…>
led by Communia and signed by many Wikimedia organisations asked for such
an edit. A position paper
<https://communia-association.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/One-pager-Exclu…>
by Communia, Wikimedia Europe and Creative Commons explains the issue.
—
The European Parliament is expected to negotiate and vote on its position
in autumn. Trilogue negotiations with the Council are anticipated October
to December and the final votes in February 2027. Of course all this is
subject to delays.
=== Competitiveness Fund ===
The European institutions are negotiating a €264 billion Competitiveness
Fund
<https://commission.europa.eu/publications/european-competitiveness-fund_en>
to run alongside the EU's 2028–2034 multiannual budget. The European
Parliament has now voted to explicitly mention open source, with
open-source software, protocols and standards added to the list of
activities that should be prioritised for funding. This means that open
source may become a strategic investment, not merely a procurement
preference.
=== Data Retention Coming ===
The Commission's legislative proposal on data retention
<https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2026/789333/EPRS_BRI(202…>
has hit another delay, but is nevertheless coming. The impact assessment is
stalling and needs another revision. The Commission still intends to make a
proposal later this year, but the timeline is sliding further into Q4. For
Wikimedia projects anything beyond a three-month IP address retention
period (current state) would potentially be an issue.
===END===
--
Wikimedia Europe ivzw
Dear all,
This email is to share two things.
First, Wikimania is NOW! There is an excellent line-up of public policy
related sessions. I've listed them all for you in this blog post
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/20/understand-the-forces-shaping-free-kn…>
[1]. These sessions are either run by members of various public policy
teams across the open knowledge movement, or provide very useful context
about an issue that is a priority area for us (think AI, online safety).
Will you be there? Pop it in our Signal chat if so! Multiple members of the
WMF Global Advocacy team will be in attendance:
- Stan Adams: All things USA policy, online safety, licensing and
standards.
- Costanza Sciubba Caniglia: Information integrity, elections, and UN or
major international internet governance discussions.
- Me!
Second, Ziski (me) is back in office - if I owe you a response via email,
please don't hesitate to let me know. It also means I'm going to start
reviving this mailing list and sharing updates about internet governance
conferences, funding opportunities, partnership ideas, alerts about cool
things some of you are doing, the usual,
See some of you in Paris, and others on the web,
Ziski
__
[1]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/07/20/understand-the-forces-shaping-free-kn…
Franziska Putz (she/her)
Senior Movement Advocacy Manager
Global Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
Fputz(a)wikimedia.org
UTC Timezone
Hi all,
Honestly, on age verification, it feels like everybody and their aunt have
published a position or a proposal. The debate is now a cacophony.
Meanwhile the parliament is trying to fix open government data in the
Digital Omnibus. Also, the Commission has presented its Tech Sovereignty
package, which includes an “open source first” principle for public sector
software built with public funding.
Dimi
=== Digital Omnibus & Open Data ===
Reminder: the digital omnibus wants to simplify personal data provisions
and open government data laws. The Legal Affairs (JURI) committee has
published its draft report
<https://communia-association.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JURI-PA-789142_…>
on the Digital Omnibus. The section most relevant to us concerns open
government data. JURI's amendments 57–60 seek several things, including to
protect non-discriminatory re-use, interoperability and the use of standard
and open licences. The issue with the Commission proposal is that it
suggests public sector bodies use non-standard licenses for very large
enterprises, which would be incompatible with the open licences we use.
Wikimedia Europe, Creative Commons and Communia have a position on this
<https://communia-association.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/One-pager-Digit…>
.
—
Communia’s assessment
<https://communia-association.org/2026/06/22/juri-tries-to-save-open-governm…>
of JURI's approach is that it identifies the right problem but gets the
solution wrong. The concern is that the amendments, while well-intentioned,
could inadvertently restrict the ability to combine and re-use public
sector information across borders and sectors — particularly if they are
read as permitting fragmented licensing practices in the name of addressing
imbalances linked to the economic power of very large market actors.
—
On the Council side, national ambassadors tried to hammer out a final
negotiating position on 26 June, but a block of them, led by Germany, is of
the opinion that the simplification efforts don’t go far enough, so the
Irish Council Presidency will have to take over from Cyprus and try to find
a way forward.
=== CSAM Directive & Regulation ===
Two separate but easily confused files have reached important milestones
this month, so it is worth reminding ourselves which is which.
—
The Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of
children and child sexual abuse material <https://law-tracker.europa.eu/#>
(a.k.a. CSAM Directive) is a criminal law instrument setting minimum
standards for offences and penalties related to child sexual abuse for EU
countries. There will be increased minimum penalties and the period during
which offences can be prosecuted will be longer, according to the agreement
reached between the Council
<https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/06/22/combatti…>
and the Parliament
<https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260622IPR45906/combatin…>.
We passively followed this legislative procedure, as it is not addressed at
platforms, but some of the language may have been relevant for our
projects. Both institutions technical teams will now finalise the legal
text, then they need to vote on it formally and it will proceed to be
published in the Official Journal. Member states will then have three years
to transpose the directive into national law.
—
The CSAM Regulation is the far more contested proposal dealing with
platform obligations to detect, report and remove CSAM, including the
question whether chat messages should also be scanned. The final political
trilogue was scheduled yesterday. As a reminder, here’s Wikimedia’s initial
position
<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…>
on this.
—
Last night, alongside watching football I presume, Parliament and Council
spent six hours trying to hash out their differences, but a deal was not
reached. Both houses now have the protection of end-to-end encryption in
their positions, which is a positive change as compared to the initial
proposal and interim versions. From what we hear, negotiators are still
trying to distinguish between public and non-public content and hence draw
the line on what must be scanned and how. We also expect that
age-verification will be part of the final text, but as a voluntary and
optional measure.
NB: What a segue to the next section!
=== Age Verification ===
The cacophony mentioned in the introduction is real. Here is an attempt to
impose some order on it.
—
The Commission's expert panel on child safety
<https://commission.europa.eu/topics/digital-economy-and-society/protecting-…>
online held its final meeting on 16 June, examining three surveys. The
panel's chairs, Maria Melchior and Jörg Fegert, will now produce a
recommendation due on 13 July. The direction, according to people involved,
is not a simple recommendation for age restrictions but something more
holistic. The emphasis from industry, civil society and EU capitals alike
has been on the need for EU-wide measures to avoid fragmentation.
—
Germany's independent expert commission presented its recommendations
<https://www.bmbfsfj.bund.de/bmbfsfj/expertenkommission-veroeffentlicht-hand…>
on 30 June, and avoided making a clear recommendation on a minimum age.
Instead it set out two options: introduce a minimum age of 13 with
graduated protection standards up to 18; or no minimum age but targeted
restrictions on specific functions and services depending on their risk
level. Crucially, the German experts explicitly said that "national
go-it-alone solutions should be avoided."
—
At the international level, the G7 published common principles for
protecting minors online emphasising that data protection principles —
including proportionality, data minimisation and purpose limitation — must
be observed in any age verification mechanism. The European Commission went
out and publicly welcomed
<https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-welcomes-g7-agreem…>
this. Interestingly, the data protection authorities of the G7 countries also
met
<https://www.cnil.fr/en/emerging-technologies-and-protection-children-g7-dat…>
during the summit.
—
Back in Europe, Estonia's Digital Minister Liisa-Ly Pakosta broke with the
D9+ coalition's joint call for EU-wide age verification
<https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/images-documents/actualites/2026/06-juin…>,
calling the "just ban" approach "a little bit populist" and arguing for
education alongside proper DSA enforcement. Czechia continues to oppose
strict bans, despite signing the above declaration. Also noteworthy: Italy's
Prime Minister Meloni said that a ban risks "partially transferring the
problem onto families" and that governments should instead put more
pressure on platforms to take their responsibilities seriously.
—
On the national legislative front, the picture is fragmenting rapidly —
which is precisely what the expert panel and industry are warning against.
Sweden published its government report proposing a ban on under-15s
accessing platforms that allow users to discover, connect and communicate
with the general public. Crucial for us is that Wikipedia is explicitly
excluded
<https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/d1b21d5210774bfba9797e08883c9633/so…>
(p. 200): "digital encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, which are based on
content shared by end users... fall outside the law's scope of
application." The reasoning is that this "corresponds to the interest of
not restricting freedom of expression and information more than necessary".
This is an argument worth citing elsewhere. Also a shoutout to Wikimedia
Sverige and Eric Luth, who never got tired to explain Wikipedia and its
sister projects to policymakers.
—
Austria is also set to publish a new age verification law. It is expected
to take a different approach, based on audio-visual and media regulation.
It will focus on platforms with specific functionalities such as autoplay
and streaks rather than a blanket ban, and with privacy-preserving
requirements for the verification mechanism itself. We are waiting for the
actual legal proposal. Stay tuned.
—
The UK is preparing to announce a ban
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-media-to-be-banned-for-under-16s-…>
on under-16s accessing certain social media, alongside restrictions on
livestreaming, disappearing messages and functions enabling communication
with adult strangers.
—
Two significant judicial developments this month will shape how national
age verification laws can be applied across borders. The CJEU's Grand
Chamber ruled
<https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-06/cp260087en…>
on 16 June in joined cases WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates
and Coyote
System that member states may impose age verification obligations on
platforms established in other member states — but only if they first
request that the member state of establishment takes action, and also
notify the Commission and that member state in advance, except in cases of
urgency. This narrows but does not eliminate the country-of-origin
principle.
—
The second part of the ruling is potentially more far-reaching: the Court
held that a platform which uses an algorithm to determine under what
conditions and in what order content is shown exercises control over that
content and therefore cannot claim the hosting liability exemption. Legal
scholars are divided on how broadly to read this — LSE's Martin Husovec
called it an "overruling of a decade of settled case law”. Others caution
against over-interpretation. Either way, this judgment will certainly
generate further litigation.
=== Copyright Consultation ===
Wikimedia Europe submitted its contribution
<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…>
to the Commission's targeted consultation on the Copyright in the Digital
Single Market (CDSM) Directive review ahead of the 25 June deadline. The
consultation covers four issues: challenges for creators linked to AI;
online piracy of live events; sound recordings of third-country nationals;
and the scope of the scientific research exception.
—
We focused on questions one and four, skipping the middle two. AI and
copyright we shared that the current framing of the issue sees the
challenge primarily in terms of rightholders' difficulty in controlling and
licensing as well as in securing remuneration for their works and that this
does not capture the situation of the open, non-profit projects and
infrastructure curated by human volunteer contributors. We suggested that
share-alike principles and public domain safeguards could be ways to avoid
commercial lock-in of the commons.
—
As WMEU is a member of COMMUNIA, I want to also share their contribution
<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…>.
Our responses regarding the scientific research exception are largely based
on their work. Among others, we suggest improving cross-border access to
scientific research and to introduce a EU-level secondary publishing right
for publicly funded research.
=== Communication on European Tech Sovereignty ===
As opposed to some fears, the European Commission has published its
Communication
on European Tech Sovereigntly
<https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-tech-sovereignty> and
a EU Open Source Strategy
<https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/open-source-strategy> is
indeed part of the package. Now, I have seen my share of communications and
strategies in Brussels, and many just get forgotten after a bit, so I am
not exactly holding my breath.
—
More concretely, the package comes with two legislative proposals, Chips
Act 2.0 and a Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA). If adopted the new rules
would give governments across the EU much more leeway in preferring local
companies in public tenders. This would be achieved by introducing four
levels of sovereignty. The lowest level demands that “data must be stored
physically in the EU” (level 1), the scale then goes up to “provider must
be owned and controlled within the EU” (level 3) and “complete control over
the entire software supply chain” (level 4). I expect a lot of
back-and-forth about which level applies to which public sector activity,
e.g. law enforcement, military, public health, education.
—
Relevant for us is that CADA introduces an "open source first" mandate. Any
software built with public funding must be openly available for reuse. This
is something that some countries already have and the results are OK but
not overwhelming. Perhaps scaling it to the EU level will help. The act
would further allocate over €2 billion toward maintaining shared,
open-source critical digital infrastructures. According to the proposal
this funding will be targeted at "frontier” AI, industrial AI, and
specialised AI models tailored specifically for European public service and
industrial needs.
===END===
--
Wikimedia Europe ivzw
Hi all,
The Brussels meeting for Wikimedians interested in public policy and
advocacy will take place on 2 & 3 October (Friday & Saturday) this year.
The programme will still need to be confirmed, but it won't be
surprising that it will include the topics of AI and child protection.
Information about the venue and more is available on Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Europe/Advocacy/Big_Fat_Brussels_…
You may add your name if you intend to participate. Participation is open,
there is no other registration.
Cheers,
Dimi
--
Wikimedia Europe ivzw